Allahabad High Court
The Committee Of Management ... vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 ... on 27 July, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Acting Chief Justice, Ajai Tyagi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 508 of 2021
Appellant :- The Committee Of Management Sarswati Devi Parmanand Sinha Inter College
Respondent :- The State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Abhiuday Mehrotra,Shailendra(Senior Adv.)
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Singh,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Shivendu Ojha
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.
By this appeal challenge is made to the judgment dated 06.07.2021 whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner/non-appellant was disposed of with certain directions.
Writ petition was filed to seek appointment to the post of Principal for which advertisement was issued in the year 2011. In pursuance to the advertisement aforesaid, selection was conducted followed by preparation of panel on 07.08.2019 and so far as the petitioner/non-appellant is concerned, he stood at serial no. 2 in the panel while other person stood at serial no.1. Pursuant to the panel aforesaid, order of appointment was not issued by the appellant for reason best known to them. Learned Single Judge noted that the candidate stood at serial no.1 in the panel attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2019 which has been disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. In any case, the candidate stood at serial no.1 in the panel did not succeed in getting appointment. It seems to be for the reason that he was serving in other institution on the post of Principal even in the year 2011. In any case, his writ petition failed and no challenge to the judgment impugned herein has been made. By virtue of the aforesaid, the claim of the candidate stood at serial no.1 in the panel has not been accepted. It may be that he has attained the age of superannuation by the time or may not but the fact remains that the claim made by him was not accepted. In view of the above, learned Single Judge directed respondent no.4 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in the light of the observation made in the judgment impugned herein.
We do not find it to be a case where panel prepared by the appellant got exhausted rather it can be only when an appointment pursuant to the panel is given whereupon if the appointee fails to join the service. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that once the panel was prepared, it get exhausted with placement of candidate at serial no.1 and 2. The argument aforesaid is not accepted for the reasons given above.
In the light of the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. It is however clarified that if pursuant to the direction of the learned Single Judge, appointment has been directed in favour of the petitioner/non-appellant and the appellant herein has any grievance therein, it can take appropriate remedy if it has not already been taken.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that remedy has already been taken but the matter has not been decided by District Inspector of Schools.
If that is so, direction is given to the District Inspector of Schools to decided the matter within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021
Madhurima
(Ajai Tyagi, J.) (Munishwar Nath Bhandari, ACJ.)
