Allowed

Dr. Jai Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2022WRIA/16136/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a university Vice Chancellor's order finalising a seniority list without confronting the petitioner with the enquiry committee's report. The Court set aside the order and remitted the matter, directing the authorities to grant the petitioner two weeks to object to the report.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.9.2022 set aside; matter remitted to Vice Chancellor with direction to confront petitioner with enquiry report and grant two weeks for objections.

Dr. Jai Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16136 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Dr. Jai Prakash Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Dixit,Anupam Shyam Dwivedi,Utkarsh Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shashi Prakash Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sudhir Dixit learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shashi Prakash Rai learned counsel for the University and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

Present writ petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 20.9.2022 passed by the Vice Chancellor, Raja Mahendra Pratap Singh State University, Aligarh. By that order, the seniority list affecting the petitioner's rights has been finalised.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is, the aforesaid decision of the Vice Chancellor is based on the report of a three member enquiry committee constituted by the University. However, copy of the said report submitted by the enquiry committee was never confronted to the petitioner. He was never given opportunity to object to the same.

¶8

Inasmuch as the seniority list has been fixed by the Vice Chancellor and not the enquiry committee, it was desirable that such report of the enquiry committee which formed basis of the decision made by the Vice Chancellor ought to have been confronted to all affected candidates.

¶9

Allowing the person a right to file their objection to the conclusions drawn by the enquiry committee would only render the decision of the Vice Chancellor more informed on facts and even in law.

¶10

By the last order, opportunity was granted to the learned

¶11

counsel for the University to obtain instructions as to the above noted facts.

¶12

Today, upon written instructions received by Sri Rai, it has been stated that the opportunity was granted to the petitioner by the enquiry committee. However, there are no instructions received as may indicate that the petitioner was granted opportunity to meet the conclusions drawn by the enquiry committee, before the Vice Chancellor by the University passed the impugned order.

¶13

In view of the above, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage. Writ petition is disposed of with the following directions.

¶14

(i) Impugned order dated 20.9.2022 is set aside.

¶15

(ii) Matter is remitted to the Vice Chancellor with a further direction to confront the petitioner and other affected persons with the report of the enquiry committee. He may grant all affected parties two weeks' time to file objection to the report of the enquiry committee.

¶16

(iii) Upon consideration of such material, the Vice Chancellor may pass fresh order dealing with the objection, if any, that may be raised. Such exercise may be completed within a period of four weeks.

¶17

Order Date :- 22.11.2022 Faraz

¶18

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.11.23 10:58:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr. Jai Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Jai Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. and 8 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

Seenu Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Maan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Pramendra Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijya Nand Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rashid Hassan Vs Aligarh Muslim University and 3 Others

Dr. Ram Sagar Dubey Vs Amity University and 2 Others