Allahabad High Court

Dr. Mahendra Mohan Awasthi vs State Of U.P. And Others on 18 March, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 



 
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37844
 
Judgment Reserved on 6.3.2025
 
Delivered on 18.3.2025
 

 
Court No. -6
 
1. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 58263 of 2005 
 
Petitioner :- Dr. Mahendra Mohan Awasthi 
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others 
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra,Chandan Kumar 
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Sthalekar,Shubham Agarwal,V.K. Goel 
 
2. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25638 of 2013
 
Petitioner :- Dr. Mahendra Mohan Awasthi 
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 3 Ors. 
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhiuday Mehrotra,Shailendra 
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
3. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 58542 of 2008
 
Petitioner :- Dr. Mahendra Mohan Awasthi
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailenra,Abhiuday Mehrotra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anupam Lalariya,H.N. Singh
 
4.Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34008 of 2007
 
Petitioner :- Dr. Mahendra Mohan Awasthi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra,Abhiuday Mehrotra,Subhanshu
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,H.N. Singh
 
5. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3281 of 2016
 
Petitioner :- Dr. Mahendra Mohan Awasthi 
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others 
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Singh,Shailendra
 
Srivastava,Shailendra(Senior Adv.)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shubham Agarwal
 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sri Shailendra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Manvendra Dixit, learned Standing Counsel for State and in WRIT- A No.- 3281 of 2016, Sri Shailendra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Durgesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Manvendra Dixit, learned Standing Counsel for State.

2. This is a bunch of five writ petitions filed by one petitioner namely Dr. Mahendra Mohan Awasthi and respective facts of each petitions are mentioned hereinafter:-

Writ Petition No.58263 of 2005

3. Petitioner has filed first Writ Petition an the order 14.7.2005, whereby an order of his regularisation dated 30.6.2005 was suspended and an information was sought from the Manager/Principal of Bundelkahand University Mahavidyalaya, Jhansi as to how two teachers were regularised against one post.

4. By way of an amendment, a subsequent order dated 9.8.2005 was also challenged in present Writ Petition whereby regularisation of petitioner vide order dated 30.6.2005 was declared to be void-ab-initio. In the present case no stay order was granted.

Writ Petition No.34008 of 2007

5. During the pendency of above writ petition, petitioner filed Writ Petition bearing No.34008 of 2007, wherein an advertisement dated 13.2.2007 was challenged to extent, it advertised a post of Lecturer (Medeval History) in the respondent institution. In the present case also, no interim order was granted.

Writ Petition No.58542 of 2008

6. During the pendency of abovenoted two writ petitions, petitioner filed third Writ Petition, challenging an order dated 10.9.2008 passed by Director of Higher Education whereby Respondent no.5 was singly transferred to respondent institution against a vacant post due to retirement of Dr.S.P.Pathak.

7. In the said writ petition, advertisement dated 18.7.2008 was also challenged to the extent of advertisement for the post of Lecturer History in the said institution. In the present case also, no interim order was granted.

Writ Petition No. 25638 of 2013

8. During the pendency of above noted three writ petitions, petitioner filed 4th Writ Petition, whereby a prayer was sought to decide issue of approval of appointment of the petitioner dated 16.1.2013 against a substantial vacant post as intimated by the Committee of Management of Institution to State respondent, vide letter dated 16.1.2013.

9. During the pendency of this writ petition, a representation of the petitioner was decided vide order dated 7.10.2015 and approval was not granted and since it was a subject matter of challenge in 5th Writ Petition, therefore an application for abatement/withdrawal was filed in present petition.

10. As referred above, since the order 7.10.2015 whereby claim for regularisation of the petitioner was rejected is under challenge in subsequent Writ Petition No.3281 of 2016 as well as that no interim relief was granted in the earlier writ petitions, either petitioner's representation was declared void-ab-initio or to challenge to advertisement or challenge to single transfer and therefore, all reliefs sought has now rendered infructuous due to efflux of time and now only issue left to consider is challenge to order dated 7.10.2015 a subject matter of Writ Petition, therefore Writ Petitions No.58263 of 2005, 25638 of 2013, 58542 of 2008 and 34008 of 2007 are dismissed. Accordingly Abatement/Withdrawal Application No.5 of 2022 in Writ Petition No.25638 of 2013 is also disposed of.

11. It is now to decide as to whether order dated 7.10.2015 passed by Director of Higher Education is sustainable or not a subject matter of 5th Writ Petition bearing Writ Petition No.3281 of 2016.

12. Sri Shailendra Advocate, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that much water has flown after regularisation of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 9.8.2005 on a ground that on same post petitioner and one another person was appointed, however, now his case has proceeded to extent that during pendency of earlier writ petitions, Director of Education has sought an information in regard to vacant post and Principal of the Institution by a communication dated 2.1.2013 submitted position of vacancy, that two posts were vacant in the subject of History due to retirement of Sri R.K.Bhatia on 30.6.2008 and that Dr. Kailash Khanna has taken Votultary Retirement on 30.6.2012.

13. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances respondent institution vide order dated 16.1.2013 has appointed the petitioner against a vacant post due to retirement of Dr. R.K.Bhatia, as communicated by the Director of Higher Education that petitioner may be absorbed since his appointment was against a substantive vacant post. However, without considering the aforesaid position of vacant post, the appointment order dated 16.1.2013 was set-aside

14. It would be necessary to observe that in impugned order, it was mentioned that order dated 14.7.2005, challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.58263 of 2005 was stayed by this Court vide order dated 5.9.2005. However, said fact is incorrect, since vide order dated 5.9.2005, this Court has only observed that if the interest of the petitioner in meantime is affected in any manner whatsoever, he will be entitled to make appropriate application in this writ petition, therefore, there was no stay of said order dated 14.7.2005 and according to record, no subsequent application was either filed.

15. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that despite there was a vacant post, still on basis of earlier ground of rejection of regularization that against a single post, two persons were appointed in the year 2005, therefore, claim of the petitioner was again rejected without taking note of subsequent events.

16. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has supported the impugned order that since initial appointment of the petitioner was de-hors of the rules and when correct facts came into knowledge that two persons could not be appointed on one post, it was disapproved and order of regularization was set-aside/kept in abeyance, therefore, no subsequent relief could be granted to the petitioner.

17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

18. The petitioner has put up a new case that Committee of Management has provided an information in regard to vacant seat due to retirement of Dr. R.K.Bhatia, therefore, according to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners his case was required to be decided on basis of his appointment against a vacant post by appointment order dated 16.1.2013 and since impugned order dated 7.10.2015 was passed considering earlier circumstances was legally unsustainable.

19. I have considered the above submissions and taken note hat once earlier appointment/regularization was rejected on basis of factual material that on one post two persons could not be appointed, how a fresh appointment be given to petitioner subsequently.

20. There is no material on record how the petitioner was appointed subsequently against a vacant post on 16.7.2023, without going through a due procedure for selection. The appointment letter was issued only to accommodate the petitioner. There is no material that petitioner has worked in the institution. The petitioner has crossed age of 60 years (he has declared his age to be above 41 years when earlier writ petition was filed in the year 2005 and aged about 53 years when this petition was filed in the year 2016).

21. The fact that petitioners' initial appointment was illegal since two persons could not be appointed on a single post and challenge to it has failed, therefore, subsequent appointment has also no legal bases since proper procedure of selection was followed, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

22. Present writ petition is, therefore, also dismissed.

Order Dated:18.3.2025