Dr. Bhagchand Chhaba and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Agricultural Education and Research Lko. and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 538 of 2026

¶3

Dr. Bhagchand Chhaba And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Agricultural Education And Research Lko. And 4 Others

¶7

ucaon n esearc	. n ers .....	Respon	dent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Dhirendra Pratap Singh, Vimal Singh Rawat	Anand	Singh,
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Prashant Ku Satyanshu Ojha	mar	Singh,

¶8

Court No. - 18

¶9

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶10

Mr. Satyanshu Ojha, learned counsel has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 to 5, which is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Satyanshu Oja, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5 and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State.

¶12

This petition has been filed against the order dated 2.9.2025 passed by the State Government.

¶13

The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent University, namely, Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya (hereinafter referred to as 'the University'), has issued advertisement No.3 of 2025, dated 24.3.2025, while inviting applications for appointment of one post of Assistant Professor for Aquatic Environment Management (Unreserved) in Fishery Department at Serial No.1 and one post of Assistant Professor for Aquatic Environment Management at Serial No.2 unreserved (UR) and several other posts. He submitted that the interview was held, and thereafter the duly constituted Selection Committee recommended the names of the selected candidates. He submitted that whether the said recommendation was placed before the Board of Management or not, but it is apparent that the Board of Management has not taken decision, as yet.

¶14

WRIA No. 538 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

He further argued that there is no hurdle for the Board of Management to take a decision, as the order passed by the State Government dated 2.9.2025, has already been kept in abeyance, vide the order dated 19.11.2025 passed in Writ-A No.12777 of 2025, with respect to the petitioners in that writ petition. He submitted that in fact, the same analogy will also apply in the case of the present petitioner as the petitioner's case is on identical footing. He added that the University is an autonomous body and under the statute of the University, the State has no role to play regarding the appointment and, therefore, the impugned order dated 2.9.2025 is unlawful. He also submitted that the petitioner, who is also one of the candidates and applied for the appointment on the post of Assistant Professor, is waiting for the result and, on the either pretext, the decision is not being taken by the Board of Management. Therefore, submission is that the order dated 2.9.2025 may also be kept in abeyance, and the Board of Management of the University may be directed to consider the recommendation of the Selection Committee within the stipulated period of time, as may be fixed by this Court.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the University submits that the post was duly advertised, and thereafter, the duly constituted Selection Committee has held the interview, and because of the order dated 2.9.2025, the matter could not proceed.

¶18

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State, while opposing the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the State, on its own wisdom, passed the order dated 2.9.2025, and there is no ambiguity at all in the said order.

¶19

Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the University is an autonomous body and has been constituted under the U.P. Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vidhyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1958'), and the State has no role to play so far as the appointment on the post of Assistant Professor is concerned. This Court finds that, while dealing with the matter in Writ A Number 12777 of 2025, this Court has kept the effect and operation of the order dated 2.9.2025 in abeyance, while holding that the order dated 2.9.2025 is unlawful, as the same goes against the provision of the Act 1958.

¶20

In view of the above, the effect and operation of the order dated 2.9.2025

¶21

WRIA No. 538 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

passed by the State Government is hereby kept in abeyance.

¶24

The Board of Management of the University is directed to take a decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee within the period of four weeks. The result shall not be declared till the final decision in this writ petition.

¶25

Let counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within three weeks.

¶26

A week thereafter is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶27

List thereafter.

¶28

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶29

January 21, 2026

¶30

Ram Murti

¶31

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

Dr. Bhagchand Chhaba and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Agricultural Education and Research Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Bhagchand Chhaba and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Agricultural Education and Research Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Singh vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Ram Susheel and 29 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Karuna Singh @ Smt Karuna Singh vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Shyam Bihari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Krishi Vipnan Evam Krishi Videsh Vyapar Vibhag and 4 Others

Budhiram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Edu. and Research Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Prem Prakash Yadav vs U.O.I Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications Ministry of Communications New Delhi and 2 Others