Allahabad High Court
Dr Rajendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 28 August, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:173977
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14317 of 2023
Petitioner :- Dr Rajendra Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bheem Singh,Aalok Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gagan Mehta
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Bheem Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appears for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel who appears for the second respondent.
2. In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed today, notice is not being issued to the fifth respondent.
3. Today when the matter has been taken up at the fresh stage Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appears for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel who appears for respondent No. 2 have made a statement at bar that they are armed with the instructions and they are in a position to advance argument and they do not propose to file any response, thus, with the consent of the parties the writ petitioner is being disposed of at the fresh stage.
4. The case of the writ petitioner is that the fifth respondent, Mihirbhoj P.G. College Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar is an institution which is a Degree College affiliated with Meerut University, Meerut which had been established under the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 insofar as the recruitment on the post of Teachers and Principal stands applicable.
5. In para 5 of the writ petition, it has been asserted that the writ petitioner has passed High School as well as Intermediate Examination with Science subject and has obtained 61.8% marks and has also pursued M.Sc in Mathematics in the year 1986 and Ph.D. in the year 2005 from Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut.
6. In para 7 of the writ petition, it has been further pleaded that the writ petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Mathematics in the institution in question on 11.10.1988 and thereafter promoted as Reader on 11.10.1999 and was assigned the Pay Scale of Associate Professor and was also given charge of Head of the Department (Mathematics) in the College in question. As per the writ petitioner, an advertisement No. 49 was issued by the second respondent, U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, Prayagraj on 02.03.2019 seeking applications for making selections on the post of Principals of the aided Degree Colleges run by the private management in the State of Uttar Pradesh being 290 posts of Principal and Dr. Virendra Pal Singh who was working as Principal of the institution in question stood retired on 07.07.2020 and the petitioner being the Senior Most Associate Professor was appointed as Officiating/Ad hoc Principal on 02.07.2020 and he assumed the charge and consequently approval was also accorded on 08.07.2020.
7. In para 13 and 14 of the writ petition, it has been further asserted that with regard to the selections in pursuant to the said advertisement, Writ A No. 10035 of 2021 (Dr. Chitra Kumar Chauhan Vs. Chairman, U.P. Higher Education Service Commission & Others) was preferred by some candidates in which there was an interim order that results of selection be not declared subsequently on 01.10.2021, the results were directed to be declared provisionally and as per the writ petitioner, it has been asserted in para 15 that one Dr. Sanjiv Kumar was selected as Principal in the institution in question his name found place at serial No. 82, however, Sri Sanjiv Kumar as per the averments contained in para 17 owing to his personal problems tendered his resignation on 30.11.2022 which was accepted by the institution in question on 30.11.2022 and the writ petitioner thereafter with effect from 30.11.2022 till date is working as an Officiating/Ad hoc Principal.
8. In paras 21 to 26 of the writ petition, it has been further asserted that the third respondent, Director, Higher Education, U.P., Prayagraj undertook proceedings while seeking inputs from the Regional Higher Education Officer with regard to the number of vacancies lying vacant on account of resignation, death etc. to which according to the writ petitioner inputs were forwarded. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner seeks to rely upon the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commission Act while drawing attention towards sub-section (4) of Section 13 that where a vacancy occurred due to death, resignation or otherwise during the period of validity of the list referred to under sub-section (2) and such vacancy has not been notified to the Commission under sub-section (3) of Section 12, the Director may intimate to the Management the name of the candidates from such list for appointment in such vacancy. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner also relies upon a jusgment of this Court in the case of Irshad Mohammad Khan Vs. State of U.P., Writ A No. 10786 of 2023 decided on 16.08.2023 as well as the judgment in the case of Kamlesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Yogendra Kumar Gupta 1998 (1) UPLBEC 743.
9. Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the third respondent, Director of Higher Education, U.P., Prayagraj to fill up the post of the Principal of the fifth respondent institution considering the claim of the writ petitioner.
10. Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appears respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel who appears for the second respondent submits that the issue as to whether the writ petitioner is to be accorded entitlement in the institution in question as well as the applicability of provisions of Section 13 (4) of the 1980 Act is to be taken into consideration at the first instance by the third respondent according to him he does not propose to file any response, however the writ petitioner may represent his cause before the third respondent who shall consider the grievance of the writ petitioner after putting to notice the fifth respondent.
11. To such a submission, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has not objection and he gracefully accepts the same.
12. Considering the submission of the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of without seeking any response from the respondents granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with the self attested copy of the writ petitioner before the third respondent who shall on the receipt of the same put to notice the fifth respondent and thereafter proceed to decide the claim of the writ petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order looking into the import and impart of the judgment sought to be relied upon the writ petitioner in the case of Kamlesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Yogendra Kumar Gupta 1998 (1) UPLBEC 743, applicability of the provisions contained under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of 1980 Act as well as other ancillary and incidental issues.
13. Thus, passing of this order may not be construed to be an expression that this Court has adjudicated the matter on merits.
Order Date :- 28.8.2023
Rajesh
