HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.663 of 2010 (S/S) Braham Singh Patwal .…Petitioner Versus H.N.B. Garhwal University & another ..Respondents Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms Geeta Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.07.2010 passed by respondent no.2 by which he has been informed by the Registrar of the University that since the University has been recognized as Central University, necessary action is being taken in his matter as per Center Government Rules. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner was engaged as daily wage employee in the University in the year 1980. He continued to work till March, 1987. He was disengaged in the year 1987 when he was arrested in a Criminal Case under section 304-B & 201 IPC. Subsequently, vide judgment and order dated 27.05.1988 he was convicted for the said offence. The petitioner challenged the conviction order before the Allahabad High Court and appeal filed by him was dismissed on 07.08.2007. Against the judgment of the High Court, 2 petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2008 before the Supreme Court. The said appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 01.06.2010 and conviction order was set aside. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner has been acquitted and he had not been disengaged on the basis of any departmental inquiry, the petitioner’s case requires reconsideration. He prayed that petitioner may be permitted to file detail representation before the respondent-University and respondent-University be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner at the earliest. 5. Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent- University, on the other hand, submitted that though the case of the petitioner is belated one and petitioner is not entitled for any relief but he has no objection in case direction is issued to decide the representation of the petitioner. 6. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file fresh representation before the respondent-University within a period of one month from today. In case such representation is filed within one month, same shall be decided by the respondent-University expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 3 7. Interim relief application no.6550 of 2010 also stands disposed of accordingly. (V.K.Bist. J,) 26.10.2010 Arti 4