Allahabad High Court
Professor Dr. Nishith Rai vs National Review & Monitoring ... on 14 June, 2012
Bench: Shri Narayan Shukla, Mahendra Dayal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 3
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 890 of 2012
Petitioner :- Professor Dr. Nishith Rai
Respondent :- National Review & Monitoring Committee Ministry Of Urban Dev
Petitioner Counsel :- Mayank Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.,S.P.Shukla
Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J.
Hon'ble Mahendra Dayal,J.
Heard Sri S.A. Kazmi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mayank Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S.P. Shukla, learned counsel for Lucknow University and Sri N. Chitrawanshi, learned counsel for opposite party nos.1 and 2.
Petitioner has challenged the advertisement dated 08.6.2012 (Annexure-16) to fill up the post of Director, Regional Centre for Urban and Environmental Studies, Lucknow, which has been issued by the Registrar of the Lucknow University, with the submissions that it is the petitioner, who has been appointed as Permanent Director of the Centre, therefore, there is no occasion to proceed for fresh appointment. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this court has examined the petitioner's matter elaborately by means of order dated 23.5.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.623(SB) of 2011 and has allowed the petitioner to function as Director, Regional Centre, for Urban and Environmental Studies, Lucknow, till the regular incumbent takes charge of the post of the Director of the aforesaid centre.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is not satisfied to some extent with the order passed by this court, being contrary of the findings given in the order, hence he has sought the review of the said order before this court, which is pending consideration and the petitioner hopes that if this court accedes his prayer and reviews its order, the petitioner shall succeed to function as Director of the Regional Centre for Urban and Environmental Studies, Lucknow, permanently, therefore, there is no occasion to make a fresh appointment of Director, and if meanwhile any appointment is made, his right to continue as Director shall be frustrated.
Without being prejudice to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and upon perusal of the order dated 23.5.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.623(SB) of 2011, we find that this court has directed the petitioner to function as Director, Regional Centre for Urban and Environmental Studies, Lucknow, till the regular incumbent takes the charge of the said post. The respondent-University has proceeded to make fresh selection. However, it is stated by Mr. S.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the University, that it will take time to induct the new incumbent after regular selection, as of now 25.6.2012 has been fixed only for submission of the application-form and thereafter several other formalities are to be completed for finalization of the selection process.
Keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-University, at this stage we feel it appropriate to list this matter alongwith the review-application of the petitioner numbered as 263(SB) of 2012, in the 1st week of July, 2012 before the appropriate Bench.
List accordingly.
Keeping in view the controversy between the parties, we hereby observe that the selection in question shall be subject to outcome of the review-application of the petitioner.
Order Date :- 14.6.2012
A.Nigam
