Disposed

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2022WRIA/13359/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding delayed appointment as a Lecturer (Political Science), the High Court directed the selection commission to issue fresh notices to unjoined candidates, verify surviving vacancies, prepare a wait list, and assure filling of posts within a specified timeframe to prevent institutional vacuum.

What did the court decide?

Issued single-joint direction to Commission to notify candidates, verify vacancies, prepare waitlist, and fill positions within prescribed timelines.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13359 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., ,M.N. Singh,Sanjay Kumar Om

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel appearing for the Commission and Sri Neeraj Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

Effectively, the petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to offer the petitioner a chance to be appointed as Lecturer (Political Science) under General Category, pursuant to the selection undertaken against Advertisement No. 5 of 2016-17 read with the Corrigendum No. 1 of 2017-18. Also, by corrigendum advertisement, additional posts came to be advertised. Against the above advertisement, 408 posts of Lecturers in different subjects were advertised. In that the petitioner applied for appointment as Lecturer (Political Science) against 28 vacancies advertised. Of that 14 posts were to be filled up under General Category. 8 posts were reserved for OBC and 6 posts were to be filled up by the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.

¶7

Thereafter the corrigendum advertisement was issued. According to the petitioner, 58 posts on the post of Lecturers came to be advertised. Of which, 34 posts were to be filled up under general category.

¶8

Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the Commission has contested the correctness of that statement relying on written instruction received by him. He states, only 28 posts of Lecturer (Political Science) were advertised. Of that 14 posts were to be filled up under General Category.

¶9

Whatever be the correct position with respect to the correct vacancies advertised, upon written instruction, learned Standing Counsel would submit, at present, 35 candidates have not joined pursuant to their selection under the above advertisement. However, subject wise break up of such vacancies that continue to exist has not been disclosed, at this stage. On that, notices were issued to 15 selected candidates on 15.06.2022. They were required to join on their respective posts by 30.06.2022, failing which their candidature would stand cancelled. However, consequential action is awaited. As to the remaining 20 candidates, it has been informed, though notices were not issued to those selected candidates, respondent no.1 shall now issue similar notice within a period of one week.

¶10

Consequently, it may be assumed, on prima facie basis, as on date, 15 vacancies do exist and some more are likely to arise after issuance of the notice to the remaining 20 candidates. However, subject wise break up of such vacancies cannot be ascertained at this stage. It may be noted, pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.07.2017, the selection process was completed on 16.12.2020 i.e. after three years. Even then, two years have passed and all vacancies have yet not been filled.

¶11

Upon specific query, it is also not the case of the respondents, any fresh requisition has been received or fresh advertisement made to fill up the posts that have remained vacant pursuant to the selection process undertaken under the Advertisement No. 5 of 2016-17 dated 17.03.2017.

¶12

Also, learned counsel for the Commission has made statement (as noted in the earlier order), the Commission has yet not been required to make available to the State respondent, the wait list that may arise consequent to the above noted advertisement.

¶13

Vacancy in educational institution may exist at the grave risk to the young of the society. On one hand, the selected candidate or the wait list candidate is anxious to seek employment and on the other hand, the interest of the educational institution requires adequate teaching faculty to teach the students who join such institutions to gain education. At the same time, the underlying interest for which the selection process is undertaken and besides the benefits of the selected candidate and the institution, lies the larger and purer interest of the society, that fuels the exercise of selection. It is the interest of the society and those pursuing and requiring necessary teaching instructions that has to be safeguarded.

¶14

Unless that interest is safeguarded and catered to in real time, the society at large is at risk of being exposed to an irreparable injury. The youth cannot remain uneducated though admitted to an institution. It is their right to be educated by duly qualified teachers. At present, there is no hope of any fresh selection process being undertaken to fill up about 35 vacant positions that have continued to exist for about six years, in the least. Keeping that principle in mind and applying it to the facts of the present case, present writ petition is disposed of with the following direction :

¶15

(i) Since sufficient time has passed upon issuance of notice to 15 selected candidates to join at their respective institutions and no cancellation appears to have been made despite lapse of five months since then, let fresh notices be issued to 35 selected candidates to whom appointment letters may have been issued but who may not have joined pursuant to the selection under the Advertisement No. 5 of 2016-17 read with the corrigendum notice, if any. Such exercise may be completed by respondent no.1 within a period of one week from today. Notices to be issued would give the respective candidates 15 days and not

¶16

more time to join at their respect institutions.

¶17

(ii) Upon expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice, the respondent no.1 shall then verify the correct status of the surviving vacancies. Such exercise may be completed within a period of five weeks from the date of issuance of notice.

¶18

(iii) Upon such intimation of surviving vacancies together with details of subject and category on which said vacancy exist, the respondent no.1 shall call for preparation and intimation of wait list by respondent no.2, within a further period of one week.

¶19

(iv) Upon receipt of that intimation, the respondent no.2 shall make due intimation of respondent no.1 such that it is received by respondent no.1 within a period of two weeks from the date of issuance of the communication issued by respondent no.1.

¶20

(v) Subject to vacancies available, considering the merit of the wait listed candidates, all efforts may be made to fill up the surviving vacancies within a period of one month therefrom.

¶21

The claim of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with the directions issued above.

¶22

With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition is disposed of .

¶23

Order Date :- 29.11.2022 Abhilash

¶24

Digitally signed by ABHILASH SINGH Date: 2022.12.01 09:40:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Rajnish Kumar Pandey Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Daya Rani Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Shri Mayanand Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arvind Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U P and 4 Others