Disposed

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

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2022WRIA/16579/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the petitioner, an Assistant Professor engaged under the Self Financed Scheme, to claim entitlement to continue on a vacant post using protections of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, while freezing fresh selections for the same post.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner instructed to claim benefits under Section 31(3)(b); selection for the specific post frozen; matter for Executive Council.

Pramendra Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16579 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Pramendra Vikram Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Namit Kumar Sharma,Gunjan Sharma

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Namit Kumar Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajit Kumar Singh learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ran Vijay Singh learned counsel for the University and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶7

Petitioner has laid challenge to the advertisement dated 25.9.2021 issued by the respondent-University seeking to appoint, amongst others, Assistant Professor (MBA) in the unreserved category under the Self Financed Scheme (in short 'SFS'). The said vacancy is stated to have arisen upon termination of engagement of one Assistant Professor who had earlier gone on leave. On that occurrence and at that stage, petitioner had been engaged against short term vacancy.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, it transpires, in the first place there is not dispute to the fact that the petitioner was engaged under SFS. Consequently, he may never claim regularisation, at this stage, against a permanent/sanctioned post of the University.

¶9

As to what survives for consideration is the principle contained in Section 31(3)(b) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Relevant to our purpose, it reads:

¶10

" 31...

¶11

(3)...

¶12

(b) Where before or after the commencement of this Act, any teacher is appointed (after reference to a Selection Committee) to a temporary post likely to last for more than six months, and such post is subsequently converted into a permanent post or to a permanent post in a vacancy caused by the grant of leave to an incumbent for a period exceeding ten months and such post subsequently becomes permanently vacant or any post of same cadre and grade is newly created or falls vacant in the same department, then unless the Executive Council or the management, as the case may be, decides to terminate his services after giving an opportunity to show cause, it may appoint such teacher in a substantive capacity to that post without reference to a Selection Committee:"

¶13

Thus, the provision of law does not seek to alter and improve the status of engagement under one category that is SFS to engagement under a regular cadre. However, the intent of the legislature is clear. A person who may have been engaged on a short term vacancy arising on a regularly appointed candidate having gone on leave and later vacating that position, the person appointed on the short term vacancy has a right to be considered to be continued in place of the person who may have thus vacated the position, subject to due approval of the Executive Council. In any case, if the service of such a person engaged on short term vacancy is to be done away, rules of natural justice would require issuance of appropriate notice and proceedings.

¶14

Though, learned Senior Counsel for the University may be right in contending that in the first place, the provision of Section 31(3)(b) of the Act applies to persons appointed against substantive posts, at the same time in absence of any contrary law and in the face of admission of the University that the vacancy under the SFS exists and that scheme is continuing, there is no good ground or reason to not apply the same principle to person engaged under the SFS. The provision of law does not seek to enhance the status and it does not create any hardship for the University inasmuch as it is also admitted to the University that the petitioner had been engaged against

¶15

regular selection carried out at the relevant time to appoint him against a short term vacancy under SFS. The rules of selection being the same and there being no dispute as to eligibility, the petitioner would remain entitled to the limited protection of Section 31(3)(b) of the Act.

¶16

Even if it were to be considered that the initial engagement of the petitioner was for five years, it did not imply that subject to continuance of work exigency and satisfactory conduct of the petitioner, he would be necessarily disengaged only to allow the University to carry out a fresh selection on same terms. Insofar as continuance of a person on SFS may in itself never confer on him any definite or better right to be regularised against sanctioned posts, no legal impediment appears to exist to apply the principle of Section 31(3)(b) of the Act, to the appointment made under SFS so long as the distinction between sanctioned posts and an appointee under SFS is maintained. In any case, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the initial stipulation of five years stood modified by the Government Order dated 13.3.2020 whereunder the engagement under SFS would continue till existence of the scheme itself.

¶17

In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of with following directions.

¶18

(i) Petitioner may make claim before the respondent NO. 3 supported by his personal affidavit annexing thereto all relevant documents to claim entitlement of benefit of Section 31(3)(b) of the Act. Such compliance may be made by the petitioner within a week from today.

¶19

(ii) Subject to such compliance made by the petitioner, the Vice Chancellor may refer the matter to the Executive Council within a further period of two weeks therefrom.

¶20

(iii) Subject to such compliance, the Executive Council may

¶21

take up the matter and pass appropriate order applying the principle of Section 31(3)(b) of the Act to the claim made by the petitioner.

¶22

(iv) Till such claim is dealt with and decided by the Executive Council, any selection made on one post of Assistant Professor (MBA) in unreserved category, under S.F.S. may not be given effect to. All other selections may go on, as before.

¶23

Order Date :- 21.11.2022 Faraz

¶24

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.11.22 10:03:21 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramendra Vikram Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nisha Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Narendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Shrikant Mani Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

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

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U P and 4 Others