Disposed

Principal, N.R.E.C. College, Khurja, Bulandshahr, and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2019WRIA/18478/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench quashed directions requiring a fresh seniority list preparation without a hearing. The writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the Vice Chancellor within ten days, ensuring an opportunity of hearing before a final decision is made.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit a fresh representation before the Vice Chancellor within 10 days; the court will decide after a hearing within one month.

Principal, N.R.E.C. College, Khurja, Bulandshahr… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18478 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Principal, N.R.E.C. College, Khurja, Bulandshahr, And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bheem Singh,Ashok Khare (Sr. Advocate)

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishan Pahal,Laxmi Kant Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut as respondent no. 5 in the writ petition.

¶7

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Bheem Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 4, Sri Laxmi Kant Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 and Sri Tejaswi Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Krishan Pahal, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.

¶8

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayers:-

¶9

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the impugned order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3 as far as petitioner's College is concern (filed as Annexure No.-6 to this writ petition).

¶10

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to interfere in the seniority list of Teachers of the College issued by the petitioner on 28/01/2017 (filed as Annexure No.-1 to this writ petition) in any manner whatsoever.

¶11

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents (specially the respondent no.3) not to pressurize the petitioners to make any change in the seniority list of Teachers of the College in any manner whatsoever."

¶12

Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the

¶13

petitioner no. 2 namely Dr. Keshav Dev Sharma was appointed on the post of lecturer in history in the college in question namely N.R.E.C. College, Khurja, Bulandshahr on 30.10.1985. Subsequently the services of the petitioner were also regularized. One Mr. P. P. Singh who was working as a regular Principal in the college retired on 30.06.2000 after attaining his age of superannuation. On the aforesaid post the petitioner was duly selected as Principal by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Commission. After his selection he is working on the post of Principal since 15.01.2009. The selection of the petitioner was challenged by certain candidates. The order of selection of the petitioner was set aside by this Court in the proceedings initiated under section 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further argued that the entire selection was set aside by the Supreme Court vide its judgment and order dated 15.07.2016. It is further argued that from the date of his joining after he was duly selected on the post of Principal by the commission namely 15.01.2009 petitioner continue to work on the post of Principal, till the time a decision was taken by the Supreme Court on 15.07.2016. It is further argued that being the senior most teacher in the institution in question even after the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, petitioner is duly discharging his duties on the post of officiating principal. A final seniority list was published on 28.01.2017. The said seniority list was challenged by the certain teachers namely Dr. Ajay Kumar Chhaukar, Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma and Dr. Iftiqar Ahmad Ansari by filing an objection before the Vice Chancellor of the University. The Vice Chancellor of the University rejected the objections raised by the aforesaid persons on 26.08.2017. The aforesaid order was challenged by the aforesaid persons before the Chancellor of the University as provided under section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act,

¶14

The Chancellor passed an order on 21.03.2018 by which the objections raised by the aforesaid persons were rejected. The order passed by the Chancellor was challenged before this Court by filing writ petition being Writ A No. 9998 of 2018 (Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma vs. State of U.P. 5 Others). The said writ petition is still pending consideration before this Court.

¶15

It appears from perusal of the record that writ petition being Writ-A No. 17904 of 2018 was filed by one Dr. Anupama Mehrotra before this Court which was finally decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.08.2019. Findings were recorded by this Court while deciding the aforesaid writ petition that the teachers are entitled to their seniority from the date of regularization of their services under the relevant provisions as well as statutes of the university. After the aforesaid judgment was delivered in the case of Dr. Anupama Malhotra a letter was written by the Registrar of the University to all the principals/Officiating Principals/Secretary/Presidents of all the affiliated colleges dated 22.10.2019 stating therein that pursuant to the order passed in Writ-A No. 17904 of 2018 dated 01.08.2019 the services rendered as ad-hoc teacher will not be added for the purpose of regularization. In view of the same, directions were given to all the institutions affiliated to the university to prepare a list of teachers. The aforesaid communication dated 22.10.2019 was challenged by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once seniority of the petitioner has already been finalised by the Chancellor vide its order dated 01.03.2018, the same is not liable to be review on the behest of the university. It is further argued that the aforesaid communication was made by the Registrar of the University but as per the provisions contained under the statutes framed by the University a decision

¶16

pertaining to the seniority could only be taken by the Vice Chancellor of the University. It is further argued that the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Anupama Mehrotra (Supra) will not apply. In so far as the petitioner is concerned. It is further argued that the aforesaid decision taken by the Registrar dated 22.10.2019 was taken without any application of mind or without providing any opportunity to the petitioner.

¶17

On the other hand it is argued by the learned counsel for the university that the aforesaid communication was made by the Registrar of the University due to a letter dated 28.08.2019 written from the office of the Chancellor. It is further argued that the decision taken by the Registrar is absolutely perfect and valid and the same was issued due to the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the Case of Dr. Anupama Mehrotra (Supra). The similar arguments were also raised by the learned Standing Counsel as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the university.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶19

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶20

It appears from perusal of the record that when the seniority list published by the Vice Chancellor of the University in respect of the college in question in which the petitioner was placed at serial no. 1, certain aggrieved teachers filed a reference before the Chancellor as provided under section 68 of the State Universities Act, 1973. The said reference was rejected by the Chancellor vide its order dated 21.03.2018. Against the aforesaid order writ petition was preferred before this Court but no interim protection was granted in favour of the petitioner in that writ petition. The writ petition is still pending. It is argued

¶21

that once the seniority of the petitioner has already been settled by the Chancellor of the University there was no occasion for the Registrar of the University to wrote a letter dated 22.10.2019 directing the petitioner to prepare a fresh seniority list. It is further argued that no notice or opportunity whatsoever has been given to the petitioner before passing the aforesaid order dated 22.10.2019 by the Registrar.

¶22

In the facts and circumstances of the case, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of finally permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances before the respondent no. 5/Vice Chancellor of the University along with certified copy of this order within a period of ten days from today. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioner before the respondent no. 5, within the time indicated hereinabove, he will pass appropriate orders on the aforesaid representation after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month.

¶23

The order impugned in the present writ petition will be abide.

¶24

Order Date :- 13.12.2019 Swati

Principal, N.R.E.C. College, Khurja, Bulandshahr, and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Principal, N.R.E.C. College, Khurja, Bulandshahr, and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Pal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Muneer and 4 Others Vs Settlement Officer of Consolidation and 2 Others

Ram Kishun and 5 Others Vs Additional District Magistrate and 7 Others

Harish Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rajesh Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suneel Kumar Vs Chakbandi Adhikari and 6 Others