SATYA NARAIN SINGH Vs. CHANCELLOR, KASHI VIDYAPITH VARANASI RAJ BHAWAN AND ANR
LAWS(ALL)-1990-2-128
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 14,1990

SATYA NARAIN SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Chancellor, Kashi Vidyapith Varanasi Raj Bhawan And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) In 1979 Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi (herein-after referred to as the University) started evening classes for B.A. in pursuance of the order issued by the Government of U.P. The Vice Chancellor of the University accordingly in 1979 in exercise of powers under Section 13(6) of the State Universities Act (herein-after referred to as the Act) appointed the Petitioner on ad hoc basis as a lecturer in Hindi for evening classes. This appointment was initially for six months, which was extended from time to time. The University vide advertisement published on 25-8-1983 invited applications for a permanent post of lecturer in regular side of the Department of Hindi and a temporary post of lecturer in Hindi for evening classes. The Petitioner applied in pursuance of this advertisement for a post of lecturer in Hindi and a selection committee constituted by the University interviewed all the candidates including the Petitioner. The Petitioner was selected as a temporary lecturer for evening classes and another person was selected for a post of permanent post of lecturer in the regular side of the Department. The Petitioner claimed to have continued thereafter as a lecturer for evening classes. The Government of U.P. however, directed for discontinuance of evening classes after the session 1987-88. The Vice Chancellor in pursuance of the order of the State Govt, passed an order dated 30-7-1987 for continuance of the Petitioner's appointment upto 30-6-1988. This order of the Vice Chancellor was challenged before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the Act. Representation of the Petitioner before the Chancellor was rejected vide order dated 14-1-1988. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition against the aforesaid two orders of the Vice Chancellor dated 30-6-1987 and that of the Chancellor dated 14-1-1988.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders on the following grounds: (i) Petitioner's services have got to be regularised under Section 31(3)(b) of the Act, and. (ii) there cannot be any distinction between a teacher appointed for evening classes and a teacher appointed on regular basis for day classes.
(3.) Section 31(3)(b) of the Act provides for appointment in substantive capacity in the following three circumstances: When a teacher is appointed after reference to selection committee (i) to a temporary post likely to last for more than six months and such post is subsequently converted into permanent post, or (ii) to a permanent post in a vacancy caused by grant of leave to an incumbent for a period exceeding ten months and such post subsequently becomes permanently vacant, or (iii) any post of same cadre or grade is newly created or falls vacant in the same department.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.