JUDGMENT Tribhuvan Dahtya, J. The petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the office order dated 01.03.2024, Annexure P-6, whereby the petitioner, who was working as Deputy Registrar in the respondent University, stands repatriated to her parent Department-respondent no. 3/Directorate of Secondary Education. 2. Succinctly, facts of the case are, the petitioner was initially appointed as Principal, Government Senior Secondary School under the Department of Secondary Education, by way of direct recruitment, and joined as such on 22.07.2008. While working there, she made an application, dated 11.09.2020, for appointment as Deputy Registrar on deputation in the respondent University. Considering her qualification, work experience, profile and exigency of official work, the request was accepted and she was offered the post on deputation basis initially for a period of one year, extendable up to three years, vide appointment letter dated 24.09.2020, Annexure P-1. Accepting the offer, she joined the University on the post. 2.1. Sometime later, the Vice-Chancellor constituted a Committee to fix "the responsibility of administrative lapse and examine the irregularity, if any, in respect of engagement of Dr. Veena Singh, as Deputy Registrar on deputation and Dr. Satish Kumar, Assistant Registrar on deputation basis". After examining the record and presentations made by the officials concerned, the Committee, as recorded in its minutes dated 27.03.2022, Annexure P-2, concluded as under: Perusal of the record produced by the University testify the facts that the officers taken (on) deputation were shortlisted by the Competent Authority, NOC was obtained from the cadre controlling authority and both the officers were found eligible to be taken on deputation in view of the qualification and experience. In the given scenario the committee is of considered view that there has been neither any lapse nor any infirmity in taking two officers on deputation. As per provision of University Act, Executive Council is the competent authority for granting such approval which the University sought and granted by the Executive Council. 2.2. Thereupon, the matter to consider absorption of the petitioner as Deputy Registrar was placed before the Executive Council (for short, 'EC') in its meeting held on 10.09.2022. As per minutes of the meeting, Annexure P-3, the Council resolved to approve the petitioner's absorption as Deputy Registrar against a sanctioned post with effect from 02.03.2021. Having been so absorbed, the petitioner continued working as Deputy Registrar. 2.3. As per minutes of the meeting, Annexure P-3, the Council resolved to approve the petitioner's absorption as Deputy Registrar against a sanctioned post with effect from 02.03.2021. Having been so absorbed, the petitioner continued working as Deputy Registrar. 2.3. After due absorption by the competent authority, the Vice-Chancellor sought 'No Objection Certificate'(for short, 'NOC') from the Directorate by writing a letter to the Principal Secretary, dated 06.03.2023, Annexure P-4, which reads as under: In continuation of letter Estt/2022/244 dated 28.02.2023,1, feel it my pleasure to inform you that the case of absorption of services in respect of Dr. Veena, Principal, GSSS Bhapora, Bhiwani (Emp. ID 078173) has been considered and approved by the Executive Council of the University in its 7th meeting vide resolution No. 08 held on 10.09.2022. The services of concerned officer considered for absorption w.e.f. 02nd March, 2021 to the post of Deputy Registrar against sanctioned post. In view of the above, it will be appreciated if you could kindly issue No Objection Certificate for her absorption in this University to the post of Deputy Registrar. In response, the Directorate conveyed to the University vide letter dated 12.02.2024, Annexure P-5, that it had no objection to the petitioner's absorption as Deputy Registrar. 2.4. Despite the approval of petitioner's absorption by the EC on 10.09.2022, and no objection to the same having been conveyed by the Directorate, the Registrar, vide impugned office order dated 01.03.2024, repatriated the petitioner and relieved her to join the parent Department; the order reads as under: Dr. Veena Singh, Deputy Registrar, on completion of her deputation period on 01.03.2024 is hereby repatriated and accordingly she is being relieved in the afternoon of today i.e. 01.03.2024, to enable her to join her parent department i.e Directorate of School Education, Govt, of Haryana, Panchkula. In these circumstances, the petitioner had to join her parent Department. She, however, challenged the order by filing the instant petition soon thereafter. 2.5. The University has contested the petition by pleading that the petitioner's deputation was initially for one year, and after extensions it came to an end on 01.03.2024. On receiving NOC, dated 12.02.2024, from the Directorate, her case for absorption could not be placed before the EC for want of quorum. As per Section 12 (e) of Dr. 2.5. The University has contested the petition by pleading that the petitioner's deputation was initially for one year, and after extensions it came to an end on 01.03.2024. On receiving NOC, dated 12.02.2024, from the Directorate, her case for absorption could not be placed before the EC for want of quorum. As per Section 12 (e) of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Haryana Act, 2012, (for short, 'the University Act') the Chancellor is to nominate three Professors of Law from outside the University as members of the EC for a period of three years which has not been done. The term of earlier nominated Professors expired on 31.01.2024. Therefore, the decision was taken to repatriate the petitioner under Section 18 of the University Act. It has further been stated that the impugned order, dated 01.03.2024, is subject to final consideration/approval of the EC as it has been passed by the competent authority by exercising powers in anticipation of its approval. Once the Chancellor's nominees are finalised and composition of the EC is complete, the case for petitioner's absorption or repatriation will be placed before it for consideration. 3. In this factual background, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order of repatriation is per se illegal since it has been passed on the assumption that the petitioner continued to be on deputation with the University. The fact however is, she was absorbed as Deputy Registrar in terms of the EC Resolution dated 10.09.2022, and after permanent absorption she could not have been considered on deputation, nor could have she been repatriated by passing the impugned order. He has also referred to the Committee's minutes, dated 27.03.2022, to contend that no infirmity was found in the petitioner's deputation and NOC was duly obtained from the cadre controlling authority/Directorate before offering the post to her. Therefore, non-receipt of NOC cannot be a ground to repatriate the petitioner after her absorption. 4. Learned counsel for the University has referred to the stand taken in the written statement and contended that the repatriation was ordered since the EC could not consider the petitioner's case for absorption due to lack of quorum. 5. Learned State counsel contends, though the petitioner has joined back in the Directorate after being repatriated vide impugned order dated 01.03.2024, it has no objection to her absorption in the University. 5. Learned State counsel contends, though the petitioner has joined back in the Directorate after being repatriated vide impugned order dated 01.03.2024, it has no objection to her absorption in the University. This has already been conveyed vide letter dated 12.02.2024. 6. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been considered, and case file as well as record produced by the Registrar has been perused. 7. As per the University Act, EC is the Chief Executive Authority, having all necessary powers to administer the University. The Vice-Chancellor is one of the officers with the duty imposed to ensure that provisions of the Act, Statutes and Ordinances are duly observed. Registrar, being another officer of the University, is ex-officio secretary of all the authorities, and is bound to comply with the orders and directions issued by the EC, as specifically provided in the University Statutes. Relevant provisions of the University Act to that effect are as under: 12. (1) The following shall be the members of the Executive Council, namely:- (a) the Vice-Chancellor of the University as the Chairperson; (b) the Chairman, the Bar Council of India, or his nominee from amongst the members of the Bar Council of India; (c) the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana, Finance Department, or his nominee; (d) the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana, Higher Education Department, or his nominee; (e) three professors of law outside the University nominated by the Chancellor on the recommendation of the Government for a period of three years; (f) three teachers of the University to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, of whom one shall be from amongst the Professors, one from amongst the associate professors and one from amongst the assistant professors by rotation for a period of two years; and (g) two teachers of the University teaching departments other than Professors, to be elected from amongst themselves, for a period of two years. (2) to (5) xxx xxx xxx 13. (1) The Executive Council shall be the Chief Executive Authority of the University and, as such, shall have all powers necessary to administer the University subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes made there-under; and may make Regulations for the said purpose. (2) to (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) One-third of the members of the Executive Council shall form the quorum at any meeting. (2) to (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) One-third of the members of the Executive Council shall form the quorum at any meeting. (6) to (9) xxx xxx xxx 17. The following shall be the officers of the University, namely:- (a) the Vice-Chancellor; (b) the Registrar; (c) Head of the Departments; and (d) such other officers, as may be prescribed by the Statutes. 18. (1) to (5) xxx xxx xxx (6) The Vice-Chancellor shall- (a) ensure that the provisions of this Act, Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations are duly observed, and shall have all powers as are necessary for that purpose; (b) to (f) xxx xxx xxx (g) if, in his opinion, any emergency has arisen which requires that immediate action be taken, he shall take such action, as he may deem fit and shall report the same for confirmation in the next meeting of the authority which, in the ordinary course, would have dealt with the matter. 7.1. Undisputed facts on record are, the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Registrar on deputation by the University vide letter dated 24.09.2020. No infirmity was found in her appointment, which was made by the competent authority after obtaining NOC from the cadre controlling authority. Besides, she was eligible for the post and had the requisite experience, as recorded in the minutes of the Committee's meeting dated 27.03.2022. Based upon that, she was absorbed in the University as Deputy Registrar against a sanctioned post with effect from 02.03.2021, vide EC Resolution dated 10.09.2022. Responding to the letter, dated 06.03.2023, subsequently written by the Vice-Chancellor, the Directorate conveyed it's no objection to the petitioner's absorption, vide letter dated 12.02.2024. Even in the face of these facts, the Registrar passed the impugned order of repatriation dated 01.03.2024, by treating the petitioner on deputation up to 01.03.2024. Once the decision was taken by the EC, the Chief Executive Authority of the University, to absorb the petitioner as Deputy Registrar, she stood so absorbed and became a permanent employee with effect from 02.03.2021. The EC Resolution to that effect was never modified or recalled at any stage. Accordingly, there was no occasion for the Registrar to treat the petitioner on deputation, and repatriate her to the parent Department. 7.2. The Registrar appeared before the Court along with the office record/file pertaining to the petitioner's repatriation on 01.07.2024. The EC Resolution to that effect was never modified or recalled at any stage. Accordingly, there was no occasion for the Registrar to treat the petitioner on deputation, and repatriate her to the parent Department. 7.2. The Registrar appeared before the Court along with the office record/file pertaining to the petitioner's repatriation on 01.07.2024. A perusal of the record shows that ignoring the EC Resolution absorbing the petitioner in University service, she was treated as deputationist. The Registrar recorded a note on the office file, dated 29.02.2024, asking for her repatriation to the parent organisation which was approved by the Vice-Chancellor the same day, and the impugned order was passed the very next day. The nothings read as under: Supdt. (Estt.) In light of the above, the file may kindly be submitted to the Competent Authority for kind consideration and approval as under: To extend the deputation of Dr. Veena Singh, Deputy Registrar, for the fourth year in University interest under exceptional circumstances since there is shortage of senior and experienced staff. If approved, her consent/willingness may be obtained & parent department may also be requested accordingly. OR 'X'[Dr. Veena Singh may be repatriated to her parent department and relieved on 01.03.2024 (A.N.). Sd/- 29.02.2024 W/Register From pre-page Sub: Existing appointment i.r.o. Dr. Veena Singh, Deputy Registrar... xxx ... W/Register Sd/- 05.02.2024 HVC Pis discuss Sd/- 12.02.2024 Registrar Discussed and re-submitted that she may be repatriated to her parent organisation. Submitted for consideration and further orders, please. Sd/- 29.02.2024 HVC 'X' at NP-2 approved. Sd/- 29.02.2024 The Registrar stated before the Court that the aforesaid noting, dated 29.02.2024, was recorded and the impugned order, dated 01.03.2024, was passed on the directions of Vice-Chancellor. 7.3. The aforesaid facts establish that affairs of the University have been run in violation of the statutory provisions. The EC is Chief Executive Authority under the University Act. The Vice-Chancellor and other officers have been enjoined powers to ensure due observance of statutory provisions, as also decisions taken by the authorities. However, in passing the impugned order of repatriation, dated 01.03.2024, the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar have arbitrarily treated the petitioner as a deputationist and ignored the decision taken by the highest executive authority approving her absorption in University service, vide Resolution dated 10.09.2022. It has, in fact, been overruled and violated by the Registrar, statedly under orders of the Vice-Chancellor. However, in passing the impugned order of repatriation, dated 01.03.2024, the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar have arbitrarily treated the petitioner as a deputationist and ignored the decision taken by the highest executive authority approving her absorption in University service, vide Resolution dated 10.09.2022. It has, in fact, been overruled and violated by the Registrar, statedly under orders of the Vice-Chancellor. Without going into the veracity of statement made by the Registrar to the extent he attributes the recording of noting for petitioner's repatriation to the dictates of Vice-Chancellor, it is apparent from nothings on the file that these senior most officers, instead of exercising the administrative powers to ensure compliance of the decision taken by the EC, have acted in derogation thereof in repatriating the petitioner to the parent Department. In doing so, these officers have belittled the EC by their disparaging action, which is without jurisdiction and strongly deprecated. 7.4. In an attempt to justify the action, a sham explanation has been put forth by the University that the NOC issued by the Directorate on 12.02.2024 could not be placed before the EC due to lack of quorum for want of Chancellor's nominees, and decision on the petitioner's repatriation had to be taken in emergency. Firstly, the NOC was sent by the Directorate on the Vice-Chancellor's request, vide letter dated 06.03.2023, based upon the EC approval to petitioner's absorption as Deputy Registrar against a sanctioned post with effect from 02.03.2021, vide Resolution, dated 10.09.2022. The NOC, therefore, cannot have the effect of undoing the petitioner's absorption in service, since it was sought only as a consequence thereof As the petitioner had unconditionally been absorbed in the University service, as already discussed, there was no justification to take the matter again to the EC or treat her on deputation. Secondly, absence of three nominated members of the EC out of its total strength of twelve, cannot be a restrain on calling the meeting, since quorum for the meeting is one-third of its members as provided under Section 13 (5) of the University Act. Therefore, even in the absence of nominated members, the meeting, if required, could have been held. Thirdly, Registrar is not the competent authority to pass any order on the petitioner's repatriation, since she has been absorbed in service pursuant to the EC Resolution. Therefore, even in the absence of nominated members, the meeting, if required, could have been held. Thirdly, Registrar is not the competent authority to pass any order on the petitioner's repatriation, since she has been absorbed in service pursuant to the EC Resolution. Under Section 18(6)(g) of the Act only the Vice Chancellor has the emergency power to take a decision, which is meant to be taken by the EC, in anticipation of its approval; and such decision is to be placed before the authority in its next meeting. The impugned order was, however, passed by the Registrar by usurping the power vested in the EC, admittedly, with the approval of Vice Chancellor. The office file nowhere records that the decision has been taken by the Vice Chancellor in anticipation of the EC approval by exercising emergency powers for the reasons mentioned. Accordingly, the impugned order is per se illegal and without jurisdiction. 8. In view of the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed. The impugned office order, dated 01.03.2024, is set aside directing the University to treat the petitioner as Deputy Registrar with effect from 02.03.2021 in terms of the EC Resolution dated 10.09.2022, and allow her to join service immediately on being relieved from the Directorate. The third respondent is directed to relieve the petitioner from her present place of posting within three working days of receiving a certified copy of this order, to enable her to join the University. 9. The petitioner has been forced to file this petition due to illegal action taken by the Registrar with the Vice Chancellor's approval in complete derogation of the University Act, which they are bound to protect and uphold. Accordingly, she is held entitled to costs of the litigation which are quantified as Rs. 1,00,000 (one lakh only). The costs are to be paid by these two officers in equal terms, i.e., Rs. 50,000 each, out of their own pocket, within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order. 10. Registry is directed to return the original record/file to learned counsel for the University.