SHARAD SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P & OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2013-9-362
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 27,2013

Sharad Srivastava Appellant
VERSUS
State Of U P And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, a Lecturer in KPLT Prashikshan Mahavidyalaya, Allahabad (hereinafter called the "Mahavidyalaya") praying for quashing the order dated 22/12/1995, by which the petitioner's appointment as Lecturer (History) on the recommendation of the selection committee was approved only for the academic session 1995-96 i.e. (up to 30/6/1996) with a direction to re-advertise the post on the ground that the rules of reservation has not been followed while making the appointment.
(2.) Pleadings between the parties being complete, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.
(3.) Brief facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are:Mahavidyalaya, is a duly recognized aided institution for imparting training to the students in the L.T. Classes. One post of Lecturer in the subject of History fell vacant on 19/3/1989, on account of death of Sri Manish Kumar Dev. The post of Lecturer in the subject of Biology fell vacant on 30/6/1992. One more post of Lecturer in the subject of Science also fell vacant. The respondent no.2, vide its letter dated 04/10/1994 granted permission to fill up one post of Professor, one post of Lecturer History, one post of Lecturer Physics and one post of Lecturer Biology. The Committee of Management issued advertisement for one post of lecturer, Science, one post of Lecturer Biology, one post of Lecturer History on 09/4/1995. The advertisement mentioned that out of three posts, two posts were reserved, one for Scheduled Caste Candidate and one for Other Backward Class. No applications having been filed by the reserved category candidates, again the advertisement was published in the Newspaper on 27/5/1995. The petitioner also made an application for the post of Lecturer History. The Selection Committee considered the candidature of candidates including the petitioner on 27/6/1995. The Committee of Management by letter dated 11/8/1995 sent the papers to the respondent no.2 for approval of petitioner's appointment. Appointment Letter dated 21/8/1995, was issued to the petitioner appointing her as a Lecturer in History. The petitioner in pursuance of the appointment letter dated 21/8/1995, joined on 22/8/1995. By letter dated 22/12/1995, the respondent no.2 communicated the approval of the petitioner's appointment on the post of Lecturer History and Shri Jitendra Kumar Singh, on the post of lecturer Biology only up to the academic session i.e. (up to 30/6/1996). The order stated that in the appointment of the petitioner rules for reservation was not followed, hence the post be re-advertised. Out of the three posts which were advertised, the Committee of Management could recommend candidates only against the post of Lecturer History and Biology. The post of Lecturer Science (Physics) was left unfilled for a reserved category candidate. After receiving the letter 22/12/1995, the Committee of Management of the College submitted a representation on 28/2/1996, stating that the selection has been made on the basis of the advertisements which were published in the newspaper twice. In the representation it was stated that one post of Lecturer Physics was left vacant for reserved category candidate. A request was made that complete approval be granted for the selection and the order dated 22/12/1995 be reconsidered. Similar reminders were sent by the Committee of Management and also by the petitioner. No decision having been communicated to the petitioner on the said representation, this writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 22/5/1996. The Division Bench of this Court entertained the writ petition on 23/5/1996 and passed following interim order: "Hon.R.A. Sharma,J Hon.S.R.Alam,J Sri. S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel prays for and is granted six weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Issue notice to respondent no.6 returnable within six weeks. List this petition for admission on 3.7.96, by which time the respondent no.6 may also file counter affidavit. In the meantime no appointment will be made to to the post held by the petitioner. 23/5/96";


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