Allowed

Amrish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2022WRIA/7329/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order disapproving the petitioner's appointment. The High Court quashed the impugned order, finding that the selection proceedings were validly conducted by four out of five members, and directed the State to treat the petitioner as a regular employee with arrears. Order Date: 19.10.2022.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 14.3.2022 quashed; directed to allow petitioner to work as regular employee with full salary and payment of arrears with 8% interest.

Amrish Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7329 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Amrish Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Harsh Gopal, learned counsel for the Committee of Management.

¶6

Present petition has been filed to assail the order dated 14.3.2022 passed by the Deputy Director (Sanskrit) to comply with the earlier direction issued by this Court in Writ A No.39275 of 2017 (Committee of Management, Sri Nath Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Hata and another vs. State of U.P. and five others) dated 25.9.1990.

¶7

Briefly it is the case of the petitioner, the post of Assistant Clerk fell vacant at Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Haata, Kushinagar in the year 2014. Complying the procedure prescribed under the Government Order 5842 dated 16.1.1992, that post was advertised to be filled up. Vide his order dated 1.7.2017, the Deputy Director (Sanskrit), Gorakhpur granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner.

¶8

After completion of such steps, two letters appear to have been surfaced, issued by Smt. Saroj Dubey and Sri Ram Bhajan Chauhan dated 28.8.2017 and 18.8.2017 disputing their presence in the proceedings of Selection Committee dated 10.6.2017 wherein five members namely Smt. Saroj Dubey, Sri Ram Bhajan Chauhan, Sri Ram Naresh Prasad, Sri Satish Chand Shukla and Sri Ram Bhawan had participated. While Smt. Saroj Dubey was the then Principal of the Government Girls Inter College, Kushinagar, Sri Ram Bhajan Chauhan was the Principal of Kisan Inter College, Kushinagar, Sri Satish Chand Shukla was the Principal of Sri Nath Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Kushinagar whereas the other two members of the Committee namely Sri Ram Naresh Prasad was the Senior Lecturer of the College and Sri Ram Bhawan was the Principal of the Institution in question.

¶9

At that stage, it also appears communication came to be issued by the DIOS, Kushinagar dated 3.8.2017 disowning prior approval of the appointment on the post of Assistant Clerk at

¶10

the above described institution in question. It challenged by the Committee of Management in Writ A No.39275 of 2019 (Supra). In those proceedings further dispute emerged as to issuance of letters dated 28.8.2017 and 18.8.2017, by Smt. Saroj Dubey and Ram Bhajan Chauhan (noted above).

¶11

That writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 25.9.2019 with the following observations:

¶12

" As the matter is serious in nature and it requires proper adjudication I, therefore, direct the Deputy Director of Education (Sanskrit), Directorate, U.P. at Allahabad to call for the records of the Institution in question relating to the appointment of Ambrish Kumar Pandey on the post of clerk by the petitioners pursuant to the recommendation of the Selection Committee and decide the same in accordance with law considering the approval granted by respondent no. 4 dated 01.07.2017 as well as the letters dated 28.08.2017ad 18.08.2017 written by two Members of the Selection Committee. I hope and trust the aforesaid exercise will be carried out by respondent no. 3 within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. "

¶13

Thus, the issue of prior approval was decided in favour of the Committee of Management by this Court. As to the validity of the appointment of the petitioner, the matter was remanded. At that stage, Sri Ram Bhajan Chauhan and Smt. Saroj Dubey have filed affidavits. Sri Ram Bhajan Chauhan categorically stated, he had participated in the selection proceedings on 10.6.2017 and that his earlier complaint made against a letter was under pressure of the then DIOS. However, Smt. Saroj Dubey maintained her stand of having not participated in the proceedings and her signature being forged.

¶14

Consequently, the impugned order has been passed. The Deputy Director (Sanskrit) had also called for a fresh report from the present DIOS Kushinagar. That report also supported the case of the petitioner with respect to conduct of selection proceedings, on 10.6.2017.

¶15

Yet, the Deputy Director (Sanskrit) has disapproved the selection on a doubt as to the correctness of the report of the DIOS. That doubt is based solely on the conflicted conclusions recorded in the two reports of the DIOS.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the impugned order does not deserve to be sustained.

¶17

In the first place the initial statement of Shri Ram Bhajan Chauhan that has been relied by the respondents does not appear to be a statement made on oath. As per narration made in

¶18

the impugned order itself, at that stage of the proceedings only a letter had been authored by Sri Ram Bhajan Chauhan. Therefore, the statement on oath made by Sri Ram Bhajan Chauhan in the proceedings in remand leading to the impugned order is the only statement of that person. Thus four out of the five members of the Selection Committee have maintained that the selection proceedings were conducted on 10.6.2017 wherein the petitioner was selected. As to the fifth member namely Smt. Saroj Dubey though she denied her presence in that meeting and also claimed her signature to be forged at the same time in the counter affidavit filed by the State in the present writ petition, in paragraph no.24 it has been stated below:

¶19

" 16. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no.20 of the writ petition it is submitted that Smt. Saroj Dubey, Principal, Rajkiya Kanya Inter College, Hata Kushinagar and Sri Ram Bhajan Chauhan, Principal, Kisan Inter College Balwa, Kushinagar have given in writing in the matter that they have not participated in the selection proceeding, therefore, the entire selection process was found illegal and irregular.

¶20

17. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no.21 of the writ petition it is stated that the suitable reply has already been given in the preceding paragraphs of this affidavit. "

¶21

Thus the counter affidavit clearly states that the signatures found recorded in the proceedings dated 10.6.2017 are those of Smt. Saroj Dubey. That statement made in the counter affidavit is not an isolated statement but is also the stand taken by the DIOS while submitting his fresh report to the Deputy Director after proceedings were remanded by this Court, on 25.5.1990.

¶22

In any case, there is no reason to doubt the presence of four out of five members of the Selection Committee that selected the petitioner. In absence of any defect of qorum shown to exist and in the face of the Government Order dated 16.1.1992 authorising the Committee of Management to make the appointments on the post of Assistant Clerk, the presence of Smt. Saroj Dubey, Sri Ram Bhajan Chauhan and Sri Ram Naresh Prasad was required by way of evidence in support of the conduct of actual proceedings and not to vest competence in of Selection Committee.

¶23

For the purpose of the constitution of the Selection Committee the presence of the Manager of the Committee of Management and the Principal of the institution was sufficient. It is only by way of external check that third parties were required to be present, to allow for verifiable evidence to exist of due conduct of the selection procedure. In so far as two out of three such third parties have verified the conduct of such proceedings and the DIOS has also found that proceeding to have been

¶24

conducted, no further enquiry was required to be made to allow for the appointment of the petitioner to sustain.

¶25

Accordingly, the order dated 14.3.2022 is quashed. In view of the discussions made above, a positive direction is issued upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as a regular employee with full payment of salary. As for arrears the same may be paid within three months failing which the same shall be paid with the interest of 8% from today till the date of actual payment.

¶26

Order Date :- 19.10.2022 Deepika

¶27

Digitally signed by DEEPIKA SINGH Date: 2022.10.21 17:19:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amrish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Const. 125/201 C.P. Jaswant Giri Vs State of U.P. and Others

Arun Chaudhary Vs High Court Judicature at Allahabad Thru Its R.G.and Another

Amrish Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Tejpal Singh Vs State of U.P. Amd 4 Others

Narayan Sahay Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others