rajdeep kumar 1 year ago

rajdeep #Delhi High Court

???? Case Overview

• Case Title: Dr. Jwala Prasad vs. Union of India & Others
• Case Number: LPA 191/2025 & CM APPL. 14715/2025
• Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
• Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Renu Bhatnagar
• Reserved On: April 1, 2025
• Pronounced On: April 17, 2025
• Appellant Counsel: Mr. Anand Prakash and Ms. Varsha Arya
• Respondent Counsel: Mr. Harsh Kumar (SPC) with Mr. Shubham Goyal (GP) for R-1 to R-3; Mr. Gyanendra Singh for R-4; Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Mr. Haradik Rupal, and Ms. Ashwarya Malhotra for R-5

???? Background

Dr. Jwala Prasad, serving as an Assistant Registrar at the University of Delhi, was appointed as the Director of Gandhi Smriti & Darshan Samiti (GSDS), an autonomous body under the Ministry of Culture, on a deputation basis for an initial period of three years, extendable at the discretion of the Appointing Authority. He joined the position on May 25, 2023.

However, on February 10, 2025, Dr. Prasad received a letter from the Vice-Chairman of GSDS directing his repatriation to his parent department without assigning any specific reason. Subsequently, the University of Delhi insisted on his return, and the charge of Director was assigned to another individual.

Dr. Prasad challenged this premature repatriation by filing W.P.(C) 2741/2025, seeking interim protection against the repatriation. The Single Judge, while issuing notice, declined to grant interim relief. Aggrieved, Dr. Prasad filed the present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA 191/2025).

⚖️ Legal Arguments

Appellant's Contentions:

• The appointment was an "appointment on deputation" for a fixed term of three years, not a mere "transfer on deputation."
• Premature repatriation without assigning any reason is arbitrary and violates the terms of appointment.
• Cited precedents emphasizing that premature repatriation in cases of appointment on deputation requires sufficient cause.

Respondents' Contentions:

• The appeal is not maintainable as the impugned order is not a "judgment" under the Letters Patent.
• Allegations of misconduct against Dr. Prasad necessitated his repatriation.
• Clause 51 of the GSDS Bye-Laws provides for repatriation in cases of misconduct, with inquiries to be conducted by the lending authority.
• Cited precedents supporting the view that there is no embargo on premature repatriation of deputationists.

???? Court's Observations and Decision

• The Court noted that the Single Judge had already considered the matter in detail and declined interim relief, scheduling the next hearing on July 8, 2025.
• Dr. Prasad had already rejoined the University of Delhi on March 25, 2025, rendering the prayer for interim relief infructuous.
• The Court emphasized that the merits of the repatriation order would be examined by the Single Judge upon receiving the respondents' counter-affidavit.
• Acknowledged the legal distinction between "appointment on deputation" and "transfer on deputation," but held that determining the arbitrariness of the repatriation requires a detailed factual examination.
• Declined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage but directed the respondents to adhere to the timeline for filing pleadings and requested the Single Judge to expedite the hearing without unwarranted adjournments.

???? Conclusion

The Delhi High Court, in LPA 191/2025, declined to grant interim relief to Dr. Jwala Prasad against his repatriation to the University of Delhi. The Court held that since Dr. Prasad had already rejoined his parent department, no case for interim protection was made out. The matter will now proceed before the Single Judge for a detailed examination of the merits concerning the legality and propriety of the repatriation order.