MUNISH DULTA Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE herein is to the judgment dated July 14, 2014, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.7770 of 2013, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant -writ petitioner, with a prayer to quash the order dated September 20, 2013 (Annexure P -27), qua his posting in Himachal Pradesh University Regional Centre at Dharamshala on repatriation from the Department of Public Administration, PG Centre, Shimla, has been dismissed on the sole ground that similar relief sought by the writ petitioner in CWP No.9231 of 2011 he previously instituted was not granted and as such to be treated to have declined.

(2.) COMPLAINT is that the order Annexure P -27 sought to be quashed by filing the writ petition has been issued after the decision of previously instituted writ petition, i.e., CWP No.9231 of 2011. Therefore, learned Single Judge should have decided the writ petition on merits in view of there being more than one reason for quashing the same disclosed from the perusal of the writ petition. Also that allowing the incumbent appointed in the year 2004 as Assistant Professor in HP University, Regional Centre Dharamshala to serve in the Public Administration Department of the respondent -University at Shimla at the cost of the writ petitioner, a physically challenged person now repatriated to Regional Centre, Dharamshala vide order sought to be quashed, is arbitrary and also discriminatory and as such learned Single Judge should have gone into all questions raised in the writ petition. The writ petitioner, a disabled person, on humanitarian ground was entitled to better treatment and in the matter of posting, a station of his choice, but the respondent -University in view of he having approached this Court earlier shown its displeasure and ordered to send him back to Regional Centre, Dharamshala, contrary to the direction of this Court qua his posting in the Department of Public Administration at Shimla. It has further been pointed out that at the time of filing of CWP No.9231 of 2011 cause of action was entirely different and as per order passed in that writ petition, the writ petitioner was posted in the Department of Public Administration, PG Centre, Shimla. Now the cause of action is different, as vide order sought to be quashed in the writ petition, the writ petitioner has been repatriated and ordered to be posted at Regional Centre, Dharamshala.

(3.) THE grouse as brought to the Court in this appeal in a nutshell is that the writ petition should have been decided on merits, being not hit by the principle of resjudicata, by taking a pragmatic approach keeping in view that the writ petitioner, a physically challenged person and the post of Assistant Professor is lying vacant in the Department of Public Administration, HP University Campus, Shimla.