W.P.(C)--9407/2019. Case: ARTI DEVI Vs. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C)--9407/2019 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | December 11, 2019 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11th December, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 9407/2019
ARTI DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dibyanshu Pandey, Ms.
Bhagat & Mr. Veeraragavan Advocates (M-9953810683) versus
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Monica Arora, Standing Counsel
JNU with Mr. Harsh Ahuja, Anushkha Ashok along with Pramod Kumar, Registrar 9810246300)
Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing GNCTD with Mr. Chaitanya Advocates (M-9999981270)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J(oral)
-
The Petitioner had filed a complaint on 9th January, 2018 before
Internal Complaints Committee (hereinafter „ICC‟) of the JNU,
under the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition
Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students
Higher Educational Institution) Regulations, 2015. The ICC submitted
recommendations on 2nd August, 2018. One of the recommendations
Committee was for re-consideration of the application of the Petitioner
registration in the Ph.D. program. The said recommendation reads as under:
“5. In case the complainant applies for registration to the Ph.D. Programme again it is recommended that the
competent authority shall reconsider her application and under no circumstances her application should be rejected on the grounds of delay.”
-
The Petitioner also simultaneously filed an appeal against the
recommendations of the ICC. Three further representations were
before the Vice-Chancellor. However, she was neither afforded a
nor was given re-registration into the Ph.D. program. Accordingly, a
petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:
“It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:
i. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to form an Appeals Committee to consider the Appeal of the Petitioner in sexual harassment complaint no. FILE/ICC/11B/01-2018
ii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to decide the appeal within stipulated time of thirty days (30 days) as mandated by JNU ICC rules.
iii. To issue any order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the matter.”
-
When the petition was listed for the first time i.e. on 30th
2019, an alleged office order dated 16th October, 2018 was handed
which, according to the ld. counsel for the JNU, disposed of the appeal filed
by the Petitioner. A copy of the same was handed over to the ld. counsel for
the Petitioner to seek instructions. Thereafter, on 12th September,
was noticed that the document dated 10th September, 2018, which
handed over by ld. counsel for the JNU, had a noting to the following effect:
“In view of above, the prayers of appellant cannot be
considered by appellate authority and the recommendations of the ICC are upheld."
Thus, there was ambiguity as to whether the appeal itself was disposed
not. Further, insofar as the order dated 16th October, 2018 was
the same was only dealing with Recommendation No.9 of the ICC.
was no clarity on behalf of the JNU as to the remaining recommendations
and the hearing of the appeal, as also the representation for re-registration.
-
Some internal notes were relied upon by the JNU after reviewing
said documents. On 12th September, 2019, this Court had observed as under:
“8. A perusal of the above note in hand writing clearly shows that appeals against the recommendations of the ICC have been filed both by the Petitioner as also the Defendants in the proceedings before the ICC. The appeals were yet to be considered and no order was passed as on 10th
September, 2018. Thus, the submission made before the Court that an order has been passed that no registration can be granted to the Petitioner appears to not be borne out from the documents handed over to the Court.
-
The various recommendations of the ICC need to be captured at this stage and are therefore set out herein below: -
“1. Defendant no. l should be censured in terms of the CCS (CCA) rules 1965 for creating uncertainty by not giving NOC to complainant as well...
To continue reading
Request your trial