Disposed

Naveen Chandra Badal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2020WRIA/12310/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge disposed of two writ petitions concerning the placement of a selected lecturer by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission. The Court noted that under Section 13(2) of the relevant Act, the displacement of the petitioner could not be the subject of an effective writ given the statutory validity of the Commission's list.

What the court decided

AI extract

Naveen Chandra Badal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12310 of 2012

¶3

Petitioner :- Naveen Chandra Badal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rashtrapati Khare,A.Khare,Ajay Kumar,Phool Chandra Singh,Sumitra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.N. Singh.,B.N.Singh,Manoj Kumar Singh

¶4

And

¶5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9430 of 2011

¶6

Petitioner :- C/M Baikunthi Devi Kanya Maha Vidyalaya And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Swapnil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C.,Abhishek Mishra,B.N.Singh,H.N. Singh,Manoj Kumar Singh,Phool Chandra Singh,Rasthrapati Khare,Sumitra Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

The petitioner in Writ -A No. -12310 of 2012 (Naveen Chandra Badal Vs. State of U.P. and Another) was selected by the Commission for the post of Lecturer (Music). His placement was recommended in the institution which is the petitioner in Writ -A No. -9430 of 2011 (C/M Baikunthi Devi Kanya Maha Vidyalaya And Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others) . The prayer made by the petitioner here was for his adjustment in some other institution since the Committee of Management had refused to permit him to join. The case of the Committee was that their institution was never included in the advertisement issued by the Commission and consequently the placement of the petitioner was illegal. On the petition of the Committee of Management, the orders passed by the Director of Education commanding it to appoint the petitioner, was

¶10

stayed. That interim order has continued till date on that petition.

¶11

The Court additionally notes that in terms of Section 13(2) of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 , the list sent by the Commission is to remain valid till the receipt of a new list. Learned counsel for the Commission apprises the Court that subsequent to 2007, further selection exercises have been undertaken and selected candidates placed. Insofar as the issues noticed by the Court in its earlier order dated 20 January 2020 is concerned, learned counsel apprises the Court that the advertisement was issued in February 2007 itself whereas the communication of the State Government of 4 June 2007 was received much later. It is in that backdrop that the Commission stands by the position taken by the Committee that no vacancies in the concerned institution stood included in the advertisement. In any case and bearing in mind the provisions made in Section 13(2), no effective writs can possibly be issued.

¶12

The petition consequently stands disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 5.2.2020 Arun K. Singh

¶14

(Yashwant Varma, J.)

Naveen Chandra Badal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Naveen Chandra Badal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun Tiwari and Another Vs the Chairman and Managing Director Bank of India and 3 Others

Ramendra Pratap Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kumari Prachi Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pramod Kumar Sharma Sub-Inspector Vs State of U.P. and Others

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.Thru Secy and Ors.

Smt. Snehlata Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others