- (1.) Dr. Y.K. Varshneya, an Associate Professor at the Department of Accounts and Law, Faculty of Commerce, S.V. College, Aligarh, is before this Court questioning the validity of impugned placement order dated 25th May, 2011 passed by Director of Education (Higher), U.P. at Allahabad recommending Dr. Arun Kumar Dixit to be appointed as Principal of the Institution concerned. Brief background of the case, as is emanating in the present writ petition, is that in the District of Aligarh there is an Institution known as Shri Varshneya College, a Post Graduate College affiliated with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra. Selection and appointment on the post of Principal and Teachers has to be made strictly in consonance with provisions as contained under the U.P. State Universities Act and U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act and other allied provisions.
(2.) In the Institution concerned, Dr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, who has been performing and discharging duties as Principal, attained his age of superannuation and the Managing Committee, in its turn, sent request to U.P. Higher Education Service Commission in terms of Section 12 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 for filling up the said vacancy. The said vacancy in question has been subject matter of Advertisement No.36 published by U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980. The said vacancy later-on was included in Advertisement No.39 and in pursuance of Advertisement No.39, the select list has been prepared by U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, Allahabad. Qua the Institution in question, the Director of Education (Higher), U.P. at Allahabad vide his order dated 28th December, 2008 issued the placement order in favour of Dr. R.M.S. Senger. Dr. R.M.S. Senger in pursuance of said placement order was appointed as Principal of the college and he joined the office and thereafter he resigned on 10th August, 2009 from the post of Principal. After resignation of Dr. R.M.S. Senger, the Managing Committee appointed Dr. K.L. Gupta as Officiating Principal and after his retirement Dr. S.P.S. Jadon was appointed as Officiating Principal. Petitioner has stated that after resignation of Dr. R.M.S. Senger while Dr. S.P.S. Jadon was working as Officiating Principal, the Director of Education (Higher), U.P. at Allahabad made placement in favour of Dr. Naresh Kumar as the Principal of the college and thereafter Dr. S.P.S. Jadon moved Writ Petition No.572 (SB) of 2015 and the net effect of the same was that Dr. Naresh Kumar, on account of the pendency of the writ petition, did not join the college and during this interregnum period, Dr. S.P.S. Jadon attained his age of superannuation, then Dr. Vipin Chandra Varshneya was appointed as officiating Principal. Thereafter the Director of Education (Higher), U.P. at Allahabad made recommendation in favour of Dr. Arun Kumar Dixit vide order dated 25th May, 2011 and the said placement order is subject matter of challenge before this Court by the petitioner, claiming that he is the senior most teacher, after Dr. Vipin Chandra Varshney has retired on 27.01.2013 and action taken is per-se bad. Earlier Dr. Vipin Chandra Varshney has also challenged the same recommendation by means of Writ Petition no.36007 of 2011, in the said writ petition, petitioner had moved intervenor application, the writ petition itself has been dismissed as not pressed on 04.08.2014.
(3.) The claim in question, that has been so made, has been resisted by filing counter affidavit and therein order of the Director of Education (Higher), U.P. at Allahabad dated 9th March, 2011 has been appended and mention has been also made that recommended candidate has already joined on 11th June, 2011. To the said counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit has been filed. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal. Shri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that Dr. R.M.S. Senger had joined his service as Principal and thereafter he resigned, then denovo fresh selection process ought to have been taken and the vacancy in question could not have been filled, as has been done in the present case and specially when he has not joined pursuant to earlier recommendation accordingly, this Court should come to the rescue and reprieve of the petitioner by directing for holding of fresh de-novo selection.;