Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Delhi HC seeks Delhi Govt’s view on Plea challenging tenure extension of IHBAS Director

2 min read

Chaini Parwani –

Published on: November 24, 2021 at 18:06 IST

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed to Delhi Government and others against a Petition challenging decision to extend the tenure of the current Director of the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS) for another year.

A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh demanded Delhi Government and others to submit an Affidavit in response to the Plea.

Advocate Vijay Kumar representing Tej Bahadur Singh, the Petitioner pleaded to stay of the operation and effect of the resolution/decision dated October 14, 2021, of the Executive Council (EC) taken in the 58th Meeting of the Executive Council of IHBAS.

It was highlighted that as per the resolution the Executive Council approved the extension of the tenure of current Director, Dr Nimesh G Desai for another year beyond October 18, 2021, till he attains the age of 67 years by dismissing the ongoing procedure of electing new Director by way of Screening Committee till March 2022.

The Petitioner stated that “The aforesaid decision of the Executive Council is in defiance of their undertaking/ submissions made before this Court time and again by filing affidavits on oath, wherein the Respondent No.1 has candidly stated on oath that the selection of new Director of the IHBAS Institution was under process and the same would be completed latest by November 30, 2021, but this Court had shown its concern and directed to complete the process of selection by November 15, 2021.”

Furthermore, the Petitioner noted that the respondents have distinctly deceived the Court while pleading the time for the appointment of a new Director, consequences being the merits of the Petition left unjudged by the Court for determining the final statement.

The Petitioner also stated that the circumstances under which the Order dated October 14, 2021, is not justified and even the Order dated October 14, 2021, leads to Contempt of the Court.

The Court adjourned the Matter for further hearing on December 23.