Civil Writ Petition No.22260 of 2010 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 04, 2011 Dr.Suman Dhanda ...Petitioner VERSUS Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.V.K.Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is serving as an Assistant Professor, Department of Biochemistry at Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. The petitioner complains that she was harassed at work place by the Chairman of the Department of Biochemistry. As per the petitioner, this has continued ever since she had started her career. Civil Writ Petition No.22260 of 2010 : 2 : When asked to elaborate the remarks, which, according to the petitioner would lead to her sexual harassment, the counsel would point out to that part of complaint filed by her where she has averred:- “On one hand your husband is claiming reimbursement for such a deadly disease and on the other hand you are having a baby. You should not have gone for it. If I would have been at his place, I would not have proceeded for it.” This, according to the counsel, were sex loaded remarks and, thus, amounted to her sexual harassment at work place. The grievance of the petitioner further is that the complaint of the petitioner has not been attended to properly. As per the petitioner, the committee which was constituted to investigate this complaint was also not properly constituted as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3011. The prayer accordingly is made for directing the respondent-University to re-constitute the committee as the earlier committee had not given proper opportunity to the petitioner to present her case. The petitioner has also prayed sought quashing of Annexures P-5, P-8 and P-9, vide which she alongwith other Professor including the Chairman of the Department were asked to function in a cordial and harmonious relationship to build up the Department and to maintain good quality of teaching and research work in the University. Civil Writ Petition No.22260 of 2010 : 3 : I have examined the remarks minutely, which are alleged to be loaded with sex and as per the petitioner would lead to her sexual harassment at work place. I have not been able to persuade myself to accept the submissions made that the remarks were such which could be termed as loaded with sex tenor to fall within the mischief of sexual harassment at work place as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishaka's case (supra). Even if it be accepted that the remarks indeed were made by the respondent, these could, at the most, be termed as inappropriate that too if the petitioner and the respondent were not having normal healthy working relationship. It may be difficult to term such remarks as sexual. I have also not been able to appreciate as to how an advisory issued by the Vice-Chancellor to the Professor working in a Department to behave and work in a cordial atmosphere would be amenable to correction or interference by way of writ of certiorari. The advisory issued by the Vice Chancellor would not give an actionable cause to the petitioner. The petitioner, if still feels that any offence or misconduct is committed, then she would have rather better alternative remedy. I am, thus, not inclined to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction to interfere in this matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. January 04, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE