Allahabad High Court
Dr. Smt. Vibha Parihar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., ... on 5 April, 2019
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 23
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 9608 of 2019
Petitioner :- Dr. Smt. Vibha Parihar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Agriculture Deptt. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manik Sinha
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Notice on behalf of opposite party No.1 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel, while notices on behalf of opposite party Nos.2, 3 & 4 have been accepted by Sri Manik Sinha, Advocate, who has put in appearance on their behalf.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner while assailing the Advertisement No.3 of 2019 dated 05.03.2019 to the extent of the post of Assistant Professor, Textile Science & Design on which the petitioner is claiming for regularization, the petitioner has prayed that the said post of Assistant Professor be not filled up through direct recruitment till pendency of the instant writ petition.
The claim of the petitioner is that she is fulfilling all the requisite qualifications and has been discharging the duties on part-time teacher with effect from 1995.
As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner should be regularized on the post of Assistant Professor, Textile Science & Design, but the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 are filling that post through direct recruitment and if the post in question is filled up by direct recruitment, the petitioner who is presently at the age of 51 years, would not be able to be regularly selected at anywhere resultant thereof she shall suffer a lot.
Per contra, Sri Manik Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 has submitted that since the petitioner is not fulfilling the conditions which are necessary for regularization, therefore, the authority concerned has not considered her regularization on the post of Assistant Professor.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has however drawn attention of this Court towards the minutes of meeting dated 10.03.2008, which is contained as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition, whereby the candidature of the petitioner was recommended for consideration but despite the aforesaid recommendation having been made no decision has been taken on regularization of the petitioner.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid recommendation dated 10.03.2008 (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition) must have been made after the authority having been satisfied that the petitioner must be fulfilling all the requisite conditions to be regularized.
On being asked as to whether any selection has been made on the post of Assistant Professor, Textile Science & Design, it has been informed at the bar that today is the last date of filling up the form for the post in question, therefore, the question for making appointment on any post does not arise. Therefore, it is noted that till date no third party right has been created.
The matter requires consideration.
Let the short counter affidavit/ counter affidavit be filed within a period of two weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.
List this petition on 30.04.2019 as fresh within top ten cases.
In the meanwhile, it is provided that the post of Assistant Professor, Textile Science & Design, shall not be filled up and no appointment letter for that post shall be issued. However, the selection process which is being undertaken by the authorities may go on.
Order Date :- 5.4.2019
Suresh/
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
