Chhattisgarh high court quashes posting of university registrar to government department against statutory rules

RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that a registrar serving under the State University Service cannot be posted or attached to a govt department outside the university system, observing that such an order violates the statutory provisions governing university services.

While allowing a writ petition filed by registrar Binod Kumar Ekka, Justice Parth Prateem Sahu on February 9 set aside the state govt’s order dated March 15, 2024, by which Ekka was attached to the office of the Commissioner of Higher Education.

The court observed that the post of registrar is a statutory position created under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Universities Act, 1973, and is governed by the State Universities Services Rules, 1983. These provisions, the court noted, permit transfer of such officers only from one university to another and not to any non-university establishment.

“The petitioner has been transferred/posted in violation of the mandatory statutory provisions of the Act and Rules,” the court observed, adding that neither the 1973 Act nor the 1983 Rules confer authority on the state govt to post a registrar in any establishment other than a university.

Ekka, through his counsel Neeraj Choubey, challenged the order, stating that he was promoted as registrar in 2016 and posted at Sant Gahira Guru University, Surguja. He argued that attaching him to the office of the Commissioner of Higher Education was contrary to the statutory framework governing university service personnel. He further submitted that the registrar’s post is not sanctioned in the Commissioner’s office and that his representation seeking cancellation of the attachment remained unaddressed.

The state, however, contended that the govt was the appointing authority for posts such as registrar and transferred Ekka to the Commissioner’s office pending inquiry into alleged financial irregularities during his tenure at the university.

During the hearing, the petitioner submitted documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, indicating that no departmental inquiry was initiated against him.

Examining the statutory provisions, the court held that members of the State University Service can be transferred only between universities under the authority of the Kuladhipati (Chancellor). Posting them to any other establishment falls outside the scope of the law.

Holding the attachment order to be “de hors the rules” and therefore unsustainable, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the state govt’s order.