The Committee of Management Agrasen Kanya Post Graduate College and Another vs the State of U.P. and 23 Others

Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Satya Prakash Rai, learned counsel for Respondent-University and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri V.P. Dwivedi, learned counsel for privaterespondents.

¶11

This matter is an off shoot of an order dated 13.10.2025 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 14890 of 2025 filed by some of private-respondents. For reference said order is reproduced hereinafter:

¶12

“1.Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ved Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.P.Singh on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 and Sri Aditya Pandey for respondent no.5.

¶13

It is not under much dispute that all the petitioners have worked for sufficient period i.e. more than two decades as Assistant Professors in different subjects at Agrasen Kanya P.G. College, Bulanala, Parmanandpur, Varanasi on ad-hoc basis however, without any substantial reason petitioners' services were terminated purportedly that in the year 2019 the post has already been filled up by appointment as there are financial constraints.

¶14

WRIA No. 1599 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

Court is of the view that petitioners, the Assistant Professors, who have worked for more than two decades cannot be terminated in one fine morning without mentioning details thereof, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the concerned respondent will provide all details behind the impugned order, so that the petitioners may confront them in accordance with law. It is also observed that concerned respondent will consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law within a short period.”

¶17

The Committee of Management of concerned College is before this Court by way of filing present writ petition.

¶18

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that in pursuance of above order, they have provided details including the reasons of late decision of removal of each private respondents by different dated orders, though admittedly private respondents have not challenged it.

¶19

Learned Senior Advocate further submits that private respondents were appointed between 1997 to 2014 without adhering to the detail procedure provided for the purpose off appointment of Assistant Professors mainly in the subjects Hindi and Sociology since there was a delay on behalf of State for conducting process of substantive appointment and such appointments were made in 2020 onwards. Though it is not disputed that in the same capacity the said respondents have worked for almost two decades.

¶20

Learned Senior Advocate further submits that said respondents were not appointed under any self financed scheme, therefore, they have no statutory right if their services are terminated. Said respondents were paid by the Management from its own sources and since in the last 5-6 Academic years, the number of students in said subjects were reduced drastically and petitioner Committee of Management has no money to pay their salary, therefore, the hard decision was taken.

¶21

Learned Senior Advocate further submits that details were provided to the Director of Higher Education also however, the same was not considered. He further submits that Director is not the appropriate authority rather appropriate authority is the Respondent-University.

¶22

WRIA No. 1599 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

Sri Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing for private-respondents submits that it is their consistent case that they were appointed through proper process under self financed scheme, therefore, they have right to continue till the substantive appointment be made by Management. They have worked for almost 20 years and no reason was assigned why their services were terminated though later some reasons were assigned, however, no material was placed before concerned respondent to support it. Petitioners are trying to remove concerned private respondents only to accommodate new incumbents of their own choice though he has not much disputed that despite the Director has supervisory power, still the appropriate authority would be the concerned respondent at University.

¶25

I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the record.

¶26

It is not under dispute that private respondents have worked for almost about two decades and for the first time petitioners have come with a case that said respondents were not appointed under self financed scheme whereas impugned order has referred their appointments under self financed scheme.

¶27

No relevant documents were produced before concerned respondent, therefore, impugned order was passed. The Court also takes note that there may be a decrease in the strength of students of College and it may be a case of financial constraint but a factor which still goes in favour of private respondents is that they have worked for about 20 years.

¶28

In aforesaid circumstances, I do not find that there is any ground to interfere with impugned order since petitioners were failed to provide details as mentioned and argued before this Court. Still, an opportunity is granted to petitioners to approach the appropriate authority of University to place their case with specific material, whether private respondents were appointed under self financed scheme or not as well as that in case said respondents are removed, the petitioners will conduct fresh recruitment or not. Appropriate authority at University will take a fresh decision within four weeks. Meanwhile, private respondents will remain working and they have to be paid by Committee of Management atleast for ensuing month.

¶29

With aforesaid observations/ directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶30

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)

¶31

February 4, 2026 AK

¶32

Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

The Committee of Management Agrasen Kanya Post Graduate College and Another v. the State of U.P. and 23 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Committee of Management Agrasen Kanya Post Graduate College and Another v. the State of U.P. and 23 Others

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

Similar cases

Dilip Kumar vs Registrar Cooperative Societies Up Lucknow and 2 Others

Bijendra Kumar and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Vinod Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Daya Ram Yadav vs the State of U.P. and Another

Bilal Ahmad vs State of U.P.

Arun Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others