HARJEET SINGH RAINA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who claims to be "A" Class Government Contractor has been awarded different contracts by the respondent-University for an amount of Rs.74.00 lacs. The petitioner submits that he is required to supervise the works which are required to be completed in pursuance to the contracts allotted to him by the university. It appears that the complaint was lodged by one Dr. Seema Nargotra, Professor in the university, and the complaint screening committee was constituted which recorded its findings and presented the same to the Vice Chancellor of the University and the complaint was closed vide dtd. 3/3/2015. It is also stated in the petition that an FIR was also lodged against him by the said professor and the FIR was challenged under 561 Cr.P.C. and the investigation in the case was stayed by this Court. The professor again filed the complaint against the petitioner herein and the fact finding committee reported vide dtd. 8/12/2020 that the charges registered against the petitioner by the complainant is a case of the personal discord that involves financial matter. The case of the petitioner is that by virtue of communication/order No. Adm./TW/20/2880/84 dtd. 25/11/2020, addressed to the superintendent of the engineering wing of the University by the Registrar, the entry of the petitioner has been restricted in the campus which is not legal order as the same has been passed without hearing him. The further case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that infact the said professor owes money to him which was borrowed by her earlier and not paid till date. The complaints filed by the said professor are only the result of non-payment of the money which the complainant owes to him.

(2.) The objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents wherein the respondents have supported the order impugned/communication impugned in the writ petition on the ground that the complaints stood filed by Dr. Seema Nargotra and Arti Sharma against the petitioner even before the National Commission for Women. It is also submitted that the meeting was held between the National Commission for Women and the officials of the University and consequently the order impugned case to be passed by the respondents.

(3.) Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Advocate, has also been heard in the matter who had filed an application on behalf of Dr. Seema Nargotra, whereby the applicant had sought impleadment as party respondent in the writ petition. The objections to the application were filed by the petitioner seeking dismissal of the application on the ground that the application is not maintainable in the present petition as the applicant is not necessary or proper party and no relief has been claimed against her.