Mahendra Singh vs V.C Narendra Deo University And ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 4334 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 20
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6535 of 2006
 

 
Petitioner :- Mahendra Singh
 
Respondent :- V.C Narendra Deo University And Anors
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Chandola,S S Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- N.K.Seth,Hari Prasad Gupta,N.P.Gupta,Nalini Jain,Satyanshu Ojha
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard Sri Pradeep Chandola, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned counsel for the University.

This Court passed an order dated 02.05.2018 as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(I) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to declare the result of the petitioner for the posts of Assistant Agronomist (Deep Water Rice) and Junior Scientist (Agronomy)/ Assistant Professor.

(II) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to issue appointment letter to the petitioner in case he is declared successful."

This Court was pleased to pass an order dated 23.11.2006 as under:-

"Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Counsel for the petitioner states that on the ground that there were mass scale bunglings, irregularities committed in the selection process, the result of the petitioner said to have not been declared. It is true that Supreme Court of India has firmly laid down in the case of Union of India Vs. O. Chakradhar, AIR 2002 1110, that where there are such allegations of mass bungling, irregularities and it is not possible to individually pinpoint the persons who have indulged in such irregularities, the whole selection process may be cancelled and fresh selection be made.

Counsel for the respondents, Sri Hari Prasad Gupta holding brief of Sri N.K. Seth, submits that the University has already been advised to cancel the selection process in this regard.

Rebutting the contention of the respondents' counsel, Sri Pradeep Chandola, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been discriminated and his result has not been declared on the ground of mass bungling and irregularities but the University has appointed the persons in whom it is interested who had also appeared along with the petitioner, in the selection in which mass bungling and irregularities are said to have been committed. Their names have been mentioned in Paragraph 10 of the writ petition as well as supplementary affidavit filed today.

Let supplementary counter affidavit be filed within two weeks and the supplementary rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter.

In the meantime, the University is directed to decide and take a decision in the matter, either to declare the result and appoint the candidates in accordance with merits or cancel the whole selection as it cannot in any manner appoint any person(s) in pursuance of the selection process of which result is said to not have been declared.

In case University fails to take decision within the aforesaid time, the Vice-Chancellor, N.D. University shall appear before this Court on 11.01.2007 to explain as to why he has not complied the orders of the Court passed today and earlier on 22.09.2006.

List on 11.01.2007.

Order Date:- 23.11.2006."

Learned counsel for the University has submitted that the result was declared and the petitioner found successful. He has also submitted that the petitioner has not approached the competent authorities after being declared successful for the post in question. He has also submitted that the petitioner has applied for the post of Assistant Agronomist (Deep Water Rice) and the said post in question is presently not lying vacant.

On being confronted, since the petitioner has been declared qualified for the post in question and has been selected, therefore, he should have been given any suitable appointment, for that he has submitted that he will have to seek fresh instructions on that point.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards order dated 19.09.2017 and 06.12.2017 passed by this court, whereby this Court had taken strict view in respect of imposed condition No.3 (Anga) stipulated in the order dated 01.11.2007. The orders dated 19.09.2017 and 06.12.2017 are being reproduced here-in-below:-

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to Annexure No. 2 to the application for interim relief bearing No. 25128 of 2016, which is an order of temporary appointment in favour of the petitioner which have been found by the Selection Committee to be fit for appointment, but, it contains an endorsement towards the bottom of Page 12 that the appointment order shall be issued to the petitioner only after withdrawal of Writ Petition No. 6535(S/S) of 2006 i.e. this writ petition.

It is informed that others selected in the selection in question on the same post have been appointed in pursuance to the same advertisement, although, the report of the Special Secretary, Agriculture in pursuance to the interim order of this Court dated 08.03.2007 states that as against 36 candidates who were interviewed 44 were selected, but, the excess candidates do not include the petitioner nor any illegality appears to have been pointed out in his selection.

The condition mentioned in the document contained in Annexure No. 2 is highly objectionable. If the petitioner has been denied appointment only on account of the pendency of this writ petition and the same not having been withdrawn, then, this is a serious matter which would call for interference by this Court. However, one last opportunity is given to the learned counsel for the University- Shri Satyansu Ojha to seek instructions from the Vice Chancellor himself and other authorities competent in this regard and inform the Court about the stand of the University.

List/ put up day-after-tomorrow i.e. 21.09.2017.

Order Date:-19.09.2017"

"Dr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, Registrar, Narendra Deo University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Faizabad is present in person.

Concededly the condition 3 (Anga) stipulated in the order dated 01.11.2007 is arbitrary and without authority of law. It is on this premise coupled with the conduct of the petitioner not to withdraw the writ petition timely that has prolonged his appointment despite he being selected on the post of Assistant Economist. Since such a condition legally could not be incorporated in the order issued under the signature of the then Vice Chancellor, the act impugned would call for scrutiny.

The Registrar who is present in person has assured this Court to look into the matter and explore possible solution so as to redress the grievance which has remained alive for all these more than 11 years.

The Registrar is expected to do the needful for which ten days time is granted to him to come up with the proposed decision and the Court may accordingly be apprised on the next date of listing.

List/put up on 19.12.2017. In case the order accommodating the petitioner is issued before the next date of listing, the same be brought on record along with an affidavit and in that event the Registrar need not appear in person.

Order Date :- 6.12.2017."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since the petitioner has been selected for the post in question and he has not been appointed on the said post, therefore, the authorities may be directed to accommodate the petitioner on any suitable post even if the post in question is not presently lying vacant as he is not on the fault.

Since learned counsel for the University will have to seek fresh instructions on that point, therefore, this matter be posted on 18.05.2018 to enable the learned counsel for University to seek instructions in the matter particularly on the point whether the petitioner may be accommodated on any suitable post so that he could earn for himself and for his family as he is facing great hardship.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner is also permitted to prefer a fresh representation to the competent authority i.e. the Vice-Chancellor of the University concerned pleading his grievances within a week from today and if such representation is preferred by the petitioner, the Vice-Chancellor of the University concerned shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law."

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 07.05.2018 and as per learned counsel for the petitioner the said representation has not been decided.  However, Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned counsel for the University has apprised the Court that in compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court, a High Level Committee was constituted and the issue of the petitioner was considered by the Committee and vide order dated 22.05.2018 the Committee rejected  the claim of the petitioner.  Sri Ojha has prayed that two weeks' time may be granted to bring on record the aforesaid order dated 22.05.2018 on record.

Since this is the matter of the year 2006 and despite the admitted fact that the petitioner has been selected for the post in question he was not given appointment for the reason that he had filed this writ petition and as per the authority of the University the petitioner was to withdraw this writ petition. 

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards order dated 01.11.2007 issued by the then Vice-Chancellor of the University whereby the condition No.3 (Anga) reads that the appointment order shall be issued to the petitioner only after withdrawal of the writ petition.  Since the petitioner was duly selected, therefore, it appears that so as to get his appointment, the petitioner preferred application to the Competent Authority mentioning therein that he shall file an application for withdrawal of the writ petition before this Court but the paper-book of the writ petition reveals that no such application has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court towards subsequent letter dated 12.06.2008 issued by the Administrative Officer of the University on behalf of the University that the petitioner has not produced the copy of the withdrawal of the writ petition as well as order whereby this Court might have permitted the petitioner to withdraw this writ petition.  By means of the aforesaid letter dated 12.06.2008, the petitioner was provided last opportunity to produce the order of dismissal of the writ petition before the Competent Authority so that his appointment order could be issued.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities were compelling the petitioner for withdrawing the writ petition for the reason that serious anomalies and irregularities have been committed while making selection in question and if this writ petition remains pending, the Court might have take cognizance of the aforesaid anomalies.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn attention of this Court towards the counter affidavit filed by the University on 09.09.2006 wherein vide paras-7 & 8 of the counter affidavit it has been categorically admitted that a large number of bungling and irregularities have been committed in the selection held in pursuance to the Advertisement No.2/2003. Paras-7 & 8 of the counter affidavit read as under:-

"7.   That on the basis of complaint received in the University, the present Vice-Chancellor of the University examined and is still examining the records.  Most of the records of the selection held in pursuance of the Advertisement No.2/2003 are not available even the records of the post for which petitioner has applied is not available in the University.

8.     That the records available reveal that the selection has not been done as per the terms and conditions of the Advertisement No.2/2003 thee is a large bungling and irregularity in the selection held in pursuance of the Advertisement No.2/2003 proper action will be taken as per law."

In pursuance of paras-7 & 8 of the affidavit, this Court passed an order dated 08.03.2007 directing the authority concerned to hold an enquiry and submit its report before this Court.  The order dated 08.03.2007 is quoted here-in-below:-

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Seen the order dated 23.11.2006 and also the averments contained in para-10 of the writ petition. An advertisement for various posts was published in Rojgar Samachar dated May 31, 2003.  In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the posts of Assistant Agronomist (Deep Water Rice) and Junior Scientist (Agronomy)/ Assistant Professor.  The interview as held on August 10, 2003.  According to the allegations contained in para-10 of the writ petition, the University Authorities are alleged to have adopted pick and choose method and appointed seven persons for various posts.  The averments contained in para-10 of the writ  petition have not been disputed while submitting reply under para-15 of the counter affidavit, filed by Mr. Nirmal Ram Sharma, Accountant of the N.D. University of Agriculture & Technology.  The reason assigned by the respondents while denying the petitioner's appointment is that irregularities in large scale were committed during the course of examination and consequential appointments made thereon.

In this context, it may be observed that in case it was found that some irregularities were committed, then why the entire examination was not cancelled and appointments made in consequence thereof have not been set aside.

While passing the order dated 23.11.2006, this Court had directed the respondents to take a decision.  Mr. N.K. Seth, learned counsel for the respondents states that the Board of the University is seized with the matter and the Committee has been constituted for submission of the report. The order was passed almost four months' back but the University has failed to discharge its statutory obligations in compliance of the order passed by this Court.

Accordingly, the Secretary, Agriculture, Government of U.P., is directed to visit the University along with his subordinates of his choice, hold an enquiry and submit a report to this Court.  He shall find out the exact number of persons who were appointed in pursuance to the examination in question and shall also submit a report whether during the course of examination in question, some irregularities or illegalities were committed.  Copies of the affidavits including the writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavits shall be provided to the Secretary, Agriculture by the learned Chief Standing Counsel along with the copy of order passed today within three days.  Let the enquiry report be submitted before this Court by the next date of listing, i.e. 06.04.2007.

List on 06.04.2007 for further hearing/ order."

In compliance of order dated 08.03.2007, an enquiry was conducted and a detailed report has been filed before this Court and the said report was taken on record.  As per the aforesaid report, the fact of bungling and irregularities have been admitted.  However, vide enquiry report dated 25.05.2007 no recommendation has been given as to what action should be taken against the erring authorities who had committed the bungling in the selection.  No such affidavit has been filed before this Court so that this Court could know as to what action has been taken against the authority concerned and as to why the selection which was made vide Advertisement No.2/2003 was not annulled.

Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned counsel for the University has produced the report of the High Level Committee dated 22.05.2018 which also does not provide as to what action has been taken against the erring authorities/ officials who had committee bungling and anomalies in the selection in question and what decision has been taken for the selection in question after knowing the fact that bungling and irregularities have been committee.  The aforesaid order dated 22.05.2018 further reveals vide para-6 that since the petitioner has not withdrawn his writ petition, however, he had prayed the authority concerned that he shall file application for withdrawal of the writ petition.  The inference so drawn by the High Level Committee on the assurance of the petitioner was that since the petitioner was ready to withdraw the writ petition, therefore, he had no objection if the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner after withdrawal of the writ petition. This Court fails to understand the aforesaid recital of the order dated 22.05.2018 passed by the High Level Committee.

In any case, since Sri Satyanshu Ojha has prayed two weeks' time to file supplementary affidavit annexing therewith a copy of the order dated 22.05.2018 i.e. order of High Level Committee, therefore, the time prayed for is granted to him.  The photocopy of the order dated 22.05.2018 has been provided to Sri Pradeep Chandola and Sri Chandola may also file an affidavit replying to the contents of letter dated 22.05.2018, if so desires.

List this petition on 10.01.2019 to enable Sri Satyanshu Ojah, learned counsel for the University to file the supplementary affidavit as prayed.  On the next date, either the Vice-Chancellor of the University or the Director, Administration and Monitoring of Narendra Dev University of Agriculture & Technology, Kumarganj, Faizabad shall appear in person along with record to assist the Court.

Order Date :- 17.12.2018

Suresh/

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]