Shiv Ram Singh and Another vs Vice Chancellor Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agricultur/Technology Ayodhya

Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners is pressing the application dated 6.1.2026 and submitted that the necessary party has been left to be impleaded. He submitted that he may be permitted to implead necessary parties in the array of respondents as has been mentioned in para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment application.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the submission aforesaid.

¶15

In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead the necessary parties which have been mentioned in para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the impleadment application, in the array of respondents, during the course of day.

¶16

Order on Writ Petition

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3, Mr. Sahars, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the termination order dated 30.8.2024 and oral order dated 1.11.2025.

¶19

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were

¶20

WRIA No. 14514 of 2025

¶21

2

¶22

engaged in the respondent-university in way back in February 1993 and April 1993 respectively and subsequently in January 2018 and thereafter, they kept on working till they have been dis-engaged orally. He submits that in fact the identically situated employees are allowed to work and the petitioners are being deprived of without issuing any show cause or passing any order of termination. He submits that dis-engagement of the petitioners is against the settled proposition of law, therefore, the orders impugned are unsustainable.

¶23

He further submits that the oral dis-engagement is done because of writ petitions were instituted by the petitioners, wherein, the orders were passed and because of animosity, the services of the petitioners has been dispensed with without any reason in writing, thus, submission is that the impugned orders may be quashed.

¶24

Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that since the work as well as fund is not available in the University, thus, the petitioners are not being allowed to work. He has admitted that prior to disengaging the petitioners from the work, no show cause notice have been issued and no order, in writing have been passed for stopping the services of the petitioners.

¶25

In addition, he argued that there is long break, in continuity of the services of the petitioners.

¶26

Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, the admitted position is that the petitioners worked in the respondent-university. Further the petitioners have been dis-engaged and they are not being allowed to work in the University as the reason is shown in the statement of counsel for respondent-university that work and fund is not available.

¶27

While examining upon the aforesaid submissions and discussions, it is apparent that no order for termination of services has been passed and even the cause and reason have not been shown that, why the work is not being taken from the petitioners moreso, it has never been intimated to them. This practice is against the settled proposition of law.

¶28

Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.8.2025 and oral termination order dated 1.11.2025 respectively are hereby quashed so far as they relate

¶29

WRIA No. 14514 of 2025

¶30

3

¶31

to the petitioners.

¶32

The Vice-Chancellor, Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Faizabad is directed to take decision afresh, while associating the stakeholders i.e. the petitioners, prior to passing, any order further. The order will be passed within period of six weeks and for the period of consideration, the petitioners shall be allowed to work.

¶33

Needless to say that if any honorarium/remuneration is still withheld, the same shall be disbursed to the petitioners, forthwith.

¶34

With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is hereby disposed of .

¶35

January 7, 2026 Ram Murti

¶36

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶37

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Ram Singh and Another v. Vice Chancellor Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agricultur/Technology Ayodhya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Ram Singh and Another v. Vice Chancellor Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agricultur/Technology Ayodhya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chandan Dixit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Prabhat Kumar Jaiswal vs State of U.P. Thru. Special Secy. Basic Shiksha Anubhag 2 Lko. and 5 Others

Kunau @ Salamuddin vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mukesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Abhishek Verma @ Ranu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vimlesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport Lko and 5 Others