Partly allowed

Dr. Devendra Bahadur Singh and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Krishi Shiksha Evam Anusandhan and 6 Others

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2024WRIA/12448/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This interim court order addresses a writ petition challenging the rejection of petitioners' candidature for Associate Professor posts. The court held that extension work staff are interchangeable with teaching staff per ICAR rules and permitted specific petitioners to appear for scheduled interviews while keeping results pending.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners No. 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 permitted to appear for scheduled interviews; petitioner No. 9 permitted to appear for future interview; results not to be declared until further order.

Dr. Devendra Bahadur Singh and 8 Others vs State… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12448 of 2024 Petitioner :- Dr. Devendra Bahadur Singh And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Krishi Shiksha Evam Anusandhan And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidhu Bhushan Kalia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh

¶2

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P. K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1, Shri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for respondents no. 2 to 6 and Shri Ashutosh Kumar Sirvastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7.

¶4

The instant writ petition has been taken up on the basis of urgency as expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner yesterday i.e. on 17.12.2024 of certain interviews being scheduled today.

¶5

Under challenge is the government order dated 08.08.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. Also under challenge is the advertisement no. 2 of 2024, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition, and the order dated 09.12.2024, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the writ petition, whereby candidature of the petitioners has been rejected.

¶6

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are all working as Subject Matter Specialists in the Krishi Vigya Kendra of the respondent university. A government order dated 08.08.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, had been issued by the state government. In pursuance thereto advertisement no. 2 of 2024 had been issued. The petitioners claim to be perfectly eligible for being considered for the post of Associate Professor and equivalent posts and had applied for the same.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the eligibility specified in the said advertisement more particularly eligibility at serial nos. I and II are possessed by them to which there is no dispute as admitted by Sri Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate also. The dispute arises with respect to eligibility no. III which prescribes a minimum of 8 years of teaching and / or research in an academic / research position equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in a University college or Accredited Research Institution / Industry in the pay scale of Rs 15600-39100 AGP Rs 6000/7000/8000, with a minimum of seven publications in the peer reviewed or UGC-listed / NAAS rated journals.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that although all the petitioners are working as subject matter specialists and are engaged in extension work yet in terms of the order dated 02.12.1978 issued by the respondent no. 7, a copy of which is annexure 10 to the writ petition, which order has clarified that the staff working under teaching, research and extension are interchangeable and all officials working under training, research and teaching are interchangeable for all purposes under the university acts and rules.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the perusal of the order dated 02.12.1978 would indicate that despite the petitioners working in the extension work yet as they are interchangeable with the teaching or research or extension consequently they are to be treated as equivalent with that of the teachers having experience of teaching and of research.

¶10

However, this aspect of matter has not been appreciated by the respondents who vide order impugned dated 09.12.2024 have found the petitioners not eligible in pursuance to eligibility

¶11

no. III of the said advertisement no. 2 of 2024. Further despite the interviews being scheduled on various dates the petitioners have not been called for the said interviews.

¶12

On the other hand, Shri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent university has argued that by no stretch of imagination the work as is being rendered by the petitioners in Krishi Vikas Kendra with regard to extension work can be considered equivalent to teaching experience and / or research in as much as the work of the petitioners involves promotion of new technology amongst the farmers and by no stretch of imagination could the said activity fall within the ambit of teaching / research work.

¶13

Various other grounds have also been taken by Shri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi which may not detain the Court at this stage in as much as the interviews are being held in pursuance to the aforesaid advertisements.

¶14

Admittedly, the petitioners are engaged in extension work and prima facie as per order issued by ICAR dated 02.12.1978 the staff working in the teaching, research and extension are interchangeable.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid, prima facie the order impugned dated 09.12.2024, so far as the petitioners have not been found eligible in terms of the essential qualification as prescribed in clause III of the advertisement no. 2/2024, does not appear to be correct.

¶16

At this stage, Shri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, points out that interviews for the post on which petitioners no. 3 and 5 have applied has already taken place. In so far as interview for the

¶17

post applied by petitioners no. 2 and 4 are concerned, no suitable candidates were found in their discipline and consequently no interview has taken place.

¶18

However, it is contended that so far as petitioners no. 1, 6, 7 and 8 are concerned, for the said posts interviews are being held today and for the post on which petitioner no. 9 has applied the interview is still to take place.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioners no. 1, 6, 7 and 8 to appear for the interview which is being held today and also permit the petitioner no. 9 to also appear in the interview against the post for which he has applied whenever the said interview takes place.

¶20

The result of the petitioners no. 1, 6, 7, 8 & 9 shall not be declared until further order of this Court.

¶21

Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent university shall inform about this order to the competent authority holding interview immediately without waiting for a certified copy of this order.

¶22

All the respondents are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit to which rejoinder affidavit may be filed within next two weeks.

¶23

List thereafter.

¶24

Let the certified copy of this order be provided to learned counsels for the parties within 24 hours as per rules.

¶25

Order Date :- 18.12.2024 J. K. Dinkar/Pachhere/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Devendra Bahadur Singh and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Krishi Shiksha Evam Anusandhan and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Devendra Bahadur Singh and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Krishi Shiksha Evam Anusandhan and 6 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

Rahul and 8 Others vs Sri Gurang Rathi, Distt. Magistrate, Unnao and Another

Faujdar @ Faujdar Rambali Jaiswar vs Sri Ghanshyam Bharti, Tasildar (Judicial) Tahsil Kadipur, Sultanpur

Saraswati Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education Lko and 2 Others

Shree Nageshwar Baba Sanskrit v. S. Dhaurahara Thru. Its Manager Shiv Gulam vs Sri Awnesh Kumar Singh Deputy Registrar Firm Societies and Chit Vikash Deep Lko.

Smt. Meenakshi Dubey vs Sri Surya Pal Gangwar D.M Lko.

Noor Alam vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Minorities Welfare and 3 Others