Mahendra Singh vs V.C Narendra Deo University And ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 308 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 23
 

 
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 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 (?.) 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 on19.12.2017. 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.

Order Date :- 2.5.2018

Suresh/

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]