INPRAPRASTHA COLLEGE OF WOMEN vs MS HIMANI MALHOTRA & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 10th March, 2025 + W.P.(C) 11093/2023 and CM APPL.43071/2023, 23639/2024, 38149/2024 and 55594/2024 INPRAPRASTHA COLLEGE OF WOMEN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, Mr. Priy Singh, Mr. Nishant Sharma and Mr. Nipun Jain, Advocates. versus MS HIMANI MALHOTRA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anandh Venkataramani, Mr.J.Shivam Kumar, Mr. Rishit Vimadalal, Ms.Rini Mehra and Mr. Devvrat Singh, Advocates for Respondent No.1. Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal and Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Advocates for Respondent No.2/Delhi University. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH JUDGEMENT JYOTI SINGH, J. 1. This writ petition is preferred by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India laying a challenge to Report dated 22.06.2023 rendered by the Appeal Committee constituted by the Chancellor of the University of Delhi under Clause 9(1) of Ordinance XII of the University of Delhi Act, 1922 (‘1922 Act’) in matter of termination of services of Respondent No. 1 herein. 2. Factual matrix to the extent necessary and relevant and as emerging from the writ petition is that Petitioner is the Constituent College of the Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11093/2023 Page 1 of 32 Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:18.03.2025 17:53:11 University of Delhi (‘University’) and is governed by its Management Committee. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Physical Education (‘DPE’) in July, 2009 on ad hoc basis. She was appointed on regular basis against a substantive post on 28.09.2010 and confirmed on 30.09.2011. Petitioner avers that acts and conduct of Respondent No. 1 was not as expected from an academician in a reputed College and at every stage, she obst