Jai Kumar v. Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Uttarakhand Medical Education University

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 29th July, 2026 WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 317 OF 2026

Dr. Jai Kumar

….Petitioner

Versus

Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna, Uttarakhand Medical Education University, Dehradun & another.

…Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner

: Sri Sagar Kothari, learned counsel. Counsel for the respondents

: Sri Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel and Sri M.S. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Sri Shivam Raturi, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

JUDGMENT : (PER: SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.)

1.

The first prayer made in the writ petition is with regard to the grievance that respondent No. 2 is illegally not permitting the petitioner to work as Head of the Department of Physiology Department in Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Rajkiya Ayurvigyan Shodh Sansthan, Srinagar Garhwal. The second prayer, made in the writ petition, is for issuing a direction to respondent No. 2, i.e. Principal of the Institute to decide the representation made in this regard.

2.

By order dated

13.07.2026, this Court directed respondent No. 2 to examine the application of the petitioner dated

16.02.2026 and take an appropriate decision on the same.

3.

Today, when the matter is taken-up, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand has placed on record the instructions received from respondent No. 2. According to it, a Committee of three members was constituted to examine the claim of the petitioner and based on the record, complaints received against the petitioner and enquiries held, the Committee decided that it would not be proper to confer responsibilities of Head of Department upon the petitioner. Based on the recommendation of the said Committee, respondent No. 2 has passed the order dated

25.07.2026 rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not provided with copy of any complaint and enquiry reports, on basis of which, the decision in question has been taken.

5.

Learned Brief Holder for the State states that copies of the complaints and enquiries and other relevant documents would be provided to the petitioner.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for liberty to withdraw the writ petition and to challenge the order of respondent No. 2 dated 25.07.2026.

7.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of respondent No. 2 dated 25.07.2026.

8.

Respondent No. 2 shall provide copy of all the complaints, inquiry reports and other relevant documents to the petitioner within three days from the date any such application, along with a copy of the instant order, is filed by the petitioner before respondent No. 2.

9.

All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

_____________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.

___________________

SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

Dt: 29th July, 2026 Rathour

PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3aeb109 7d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6179B8E 010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2026.07.30 13:00:16 +05'30'