Allahabad High Court
Shrikant Mani Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 3 April, 2023
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 101 of 2023
Appellant :- Shrikant Mani Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Pandey,Prabhakar Awasthi,Ravi Kant Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shashi Prakash Rai
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
In re: Civil Misc Condonation Application no.01 of 2023
Sri Shashi Prakash Rai learned counsel for the respondent University submits that he has no objection to the delay condonation application.
The explanation offered for delay in filing the appeal is to the satisfaction of the Court.
The delay condonation application is allowed. Delay condoned.
Office shall allot regular number to the appeal.
Order on appeal
The order of the learned Single Judge is sought to be assailed on the ground that on grant of prior approval of the Regional Higher Education Officer by order dated 17.12.2008 the selection process began and subsequent ban imposed by the Government Order dated 13.05.2009 would not be attracted in so far as the selection of the petitioner/appellant is concerned.
The attention of the Court is invited to the Government Order dated 13.05.2009 which is appended at page no.'187' to assert that the requirement therein was to amend the statute of the University to incorporate the eligibility qualifications of computer knowledge for appointment to the post of librarian. The ban as imposed by the order dated 13.05.2009 would only operate in a process which has been initiated on or after 13.05.2009.
The submission is that the opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge that the eligibility condition stood amended by the issuance of the Government Order dated 13.05.2009 is incorrect, in as much as, the amendment in the eligibility condition was subject to the incorporation in the appropriate statute.
The submission, thus, is that there was no prohibition for selection of the appellant on the post of librarian pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.12.2009. The judgment of the Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and others vs Sri Sevadas Vidyamandir High School and others reported in (2011) 9 SCC 613 has been relied upon to assert that even the Apex Court had taken note of the fact that with the grant of prior approval for initiation of the selection process, the process of recruitment started and there is no rationale to implement the ban of the State Government in such process.
Considering the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, we may note that the observation made in the judgment of the Apex Court in Government of A.P. and others (supra) is not of any benefit to the appellant herein, in as much as, the factual situation in the said case was that even the advertisement for selection to the post in question was published prior to imposition of ban by the State Government.
In the instant case, a perusal of the Government Order dated 13.05.2009 indicates that there was a categorical direction to incorporate the eligibility qualification of computer training in the statute of the University for selection to the post of librarian and till such amendment is incorporated, it was directed that all posts in the said cadre stood freezed and proceedings for selection could have been undertaken only after incorporation of eligibility condition in the statute of the University.
We may further note that Section 50(6) of the U.P. State University Act, 1973, the State Government is empowered to take any decision in the interest of learning, teaching or research or for any benefit of teachers, students etc on the basis of any suggestion or recommendation of the University Grants Commission or the State or the National Education Policy with regard to qualification of the teachers and require the Executive Council of the University to make new or additional statutes or amend or repeal the statutes referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1-A) within a specified time.
Section 66A of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 further empowers the State Government to issue directions from time to time to University on policy matters not inconsistent to the provisions of the Act, 1973 as it may deem necessary and such directions have to be complied with by the University.
In a such situation, once the State Government had communicated to the University by the Government Order dated 13.05.2009 to suitably amend the statute of the University in view of the recommendation of U.G.C for providing eligibility of computer training for appointment to the post of librarian there was no option before the University but to amend the statute.
In case of any refusal of the University or any inaction of the University to suitably amend the statute, the recommended by the State Government in the Government Order dated 13.05.2009 stood incorporated, in the statute.
In any case, after issuance of the Government Order dated 13.05.2009, it was not open for the Committee of Management of the institution concerned to publish the advertisement dated 20.12.2009 as the post of Librarian in all institution, affiliated with the University concerned stood freezed.
Moreover, the advertisement in question was not conformity with the eligibility conditions provided in the Government Order dated 13.05.2009.
For the aforesaid, we do not find any good ground to sustain the challenge.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.4.2023
Harshita
