Allahabad High Court
Rashmi Sharma vs Chancellor, U P State ... on 2 February, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1401 of 2021
Petitioner :- Rashmi Sharma
Respondent :- Chancellor, U P State Universities And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- B.S. Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- Avneesh Tripathi
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri B.S.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 31.8.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 and the decision dated 01.10.2019 taken by the respondent no.3 coupled with order dated 28.10.2020 passed by respondent no.1.
It is a case where petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Library Assistant for a period of eleven months. Her term was extended from time to time on the said post. It was with enhancement of monthly emoluments. The respondent then passed an order showing the petitioner on the post of Assistant Librarian. The respondents thereafter substituted the order to bring the petitioner on the original post on which she was engaged for a period of eleven months with extension of term from time to time.
The petitioner preferred writ petition to challenge the order of the respondents. It was disposed of with certain direction and accordingly respondents passed an order adverse to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner to continue her on the post of Assistant Librarian was not accepted. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chancellor. The appeal/reference was rejected on the ground that petitioner was not engaged on the post of Assistant Librarian as otherwise it is in teaching cadre whereas post of Library Assistant is of clerical in nature. The petitioner was engaged in the clerical cadre thus could not have been given the post of teaching cadre.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the decision to allow the petitioner on the post of Assistant Librarian was taken on the recommendation of the Committee, there was no reason to substitute the aforesaid post when there was no disciplinary inquiry so as to impose punishment. Accordingly the Chancellor should have cause interference in the order to allow the petitioner to continue her on the post of Assistant Librarian.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner was appointed on the post of Library Assistant and is not continuing now and accordingly she is not working with respondents.
In the light of the aforesaid, now nothing remains because even after showing the post of Assistant Librarian of the petitioner, neither monthly remuneration was changed nor working. The petitioner was not put to teaching job and her salary also remains the same. The name of the post changed due to oversight and realizing the mistake, the order was corrected and accordingly the Chancellor rightly rejected the reference.
Considering the submissions made by the parties and on perusal of record, the issue raised in the writ petition now remain only academic in nature, inasmuch as, after the engagement of the petitioner for a period of eleven months initially on the post of Library Assistant, she continued with extension of term from time to time. At one stage the order was passed showing petitioner on the post of Assistant Librarian but that order was modified/substituted to bring the petitioner on the original post. With use of word "Assistant Librarian" in the order passed by the respondents, neither the petitioner was put for teaching job nor her monthly remuneration was increased. She continued with the same status and now is not working with the respondents. Thus, even if the order would have been passed by the Chancellor to bring the petitioner on the post of Assistant Librarian, the position in regard to the working as also remuneration would not have changed because it was not changed even when the order was passed showing petitioner to be Assistant Librarian. We find two posts referred in the judgment to be in different cadre and were not available even on promotion. Thus, we do not find any reason to cause interference in the order passed by the Chancellor.
The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021
KA
