Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Statutory Integrity of University Service
In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has decisively stated that a registrar serving under the State University Service cannot be posted or attached to any government department outside the university system. This judgment underscores the strict adherence required to statutory provisions governing university services, marking a pivotal moment for administrative law in the state.
Court's Observations on Statutory Violations
Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, while allowing a writ petition filed by registrar Binod Kumar Ekka on February 9, set aside the state government's order dated March 15, 2024. This order had attached Ekka to the office of the Commissioner of Higher Education. The court meticulously examined the legal framework, noting that the post of registrar is a statutory position created under the Chhattisgarh Universities Act, 1973, and is governed by the State Universities Services Rules, 1983.
The court emphasized that these provisions explicitly permit the transfer of such officers only from one university to another, and not to any non-university establishment. It observed, "The petitioner has been transferred/posted in violation of the mandatory statutory provisions of the Act and Rules." Furthermore, the court clarified that neither the 1973 Act nor the 1983 Rules confer any authority on the state government to post a registrar in an establishment other than a university.
Petitioner's Arguments and State's Defense
Binod Kumar Ekka, represented by his counsel Neeraj Choubey, challenged the attachment order, arguing that it contravened the statutory framework. Ekka, who was promoted as registrar in 2016 and posted at Sant Gahira Guru University in Surguja, contended that the registrar's post is not sanctioned in the Commissioner's office. He also highlighted that his representation seeking cancellation of the attachment remained unaddressed, adding to the procedural lapses.
In response, the state government defended its action by asserting that it was the appointing authority for posts such as registrar. The government claimed that Ekka was transferred to the Commissioner's office pending an inquiry into alleged financial irregularities during his tenure at the university. However, during the hearing, Ekka submitted documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which indicated that no departmental inquiry had been initiated against him, casting doubt on the state's justification.
Court's Final Ruling and Implications
After a thorough examination of the statutory provisions, the court held that members of the State University Service can only be transferred between universities under the authority of the Kuladhipati (Chancellor). Posting them to any other establishment falls entirely outside the legal scope. The court declared the attachment order to be "de hors the rules" and therefore unsustainable.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the state government's order, reinforcing the principle that statutory positions must be managed within their designated frameworks. This ruling not only protects the rights of university service personnel but also sets a precedent for future cases involving administrative transfers in educational institutions.
