R.K.Agrawal, J. - (1.) By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Dr. Hari Bansh Dwivedi, seeks the following reliefs:- (a) issue writ, order or direction of the nature of writ of certiorari commanding opposite parties nos.1 to 6 to produce the record of the case and to quash the appointment order dated 10.7.1999 (Annexure XVIII to the writ petition) and letter of opposite party no.6 dated 6.10.1997 (Annexure II to the writ petition). (b) issue writ, order or direction of the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties 1 to 4 to fill the post of tem advertisement dated 9.2.1999 in accordance with the provisions of section 31 of U.P.State Universities Act, 1973. (c) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) Award cost of writ petition."
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:- According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a temporary Lecturer in Dharmik Anushthan and Karmakand vide order dated 12.9.1984 issued by the Registrar of the Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as "the University"). He joined on the said post on 12.9.1984 itself and continuously discharged the duties and function on the said post till 31.7.1987 when a decision was taken by the University to close the evening classes. The Government of Uttar Pradesh, vide letter dated 22.10.1996, sanctioned one post of a temporary Lecturer in Karmakand in the Department of Sanskrit in the University. On coming to know that a temporary post of Lecturer in Karmakand had been sanctioned, the petitioner made a representation to the Vice Chancellor of the University. However, vide another letter dated 6.10.1997, the State Government directed the University to regularise the service of Dr. Jai Prakash Pandey, respondent no.6, on the post of the temporary Lecturer. The petitioner, on coming to know about the letter dated 6.10.1997 by which the State Government had directed the University itself to regularise the service of the respondent no.6, approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.30738 of 1998, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the aforementioned letter. He also sought the relief for regularisation of his services on the post sanctioned by the State Government vide letter dated 22.10.1996 and, in the alternative, to fill the said post in accordance with the provisions of Section 31 of the U.P.State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner further sought a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents in the said writ petition to regularise the services of the present respondent no.6. In the said writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the University in which a stand was taken that neither the petitioner nor the respondent no.6 were entitled for regularisation of their services. The present respondent no.6 also filed his counter affidavit in the aforementioned writ petition in which he admitted that he was a permanent Assistant Teacher of Sanskrit in Adarsh Sewa Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Ishwargangi, Varanasi. He also claimed to have been appointed as Lecturer in Karmakand in the evening classes run by the University. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 19.2.1999. The Court did not consider the case of the petitioner to quash the letter of the State Government dated 6.10.1997 in view of the stand taken by the University authorities in their counter affidavit. The Court left the question open by observing that if the University acted in a different manner, then it will be open to the petitioner to approach this Court. Thereafter, the respondent no.6 filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.6811 of 1999 in this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the University authorities to forthwith comply, without any further delay, the order of the State Government dated 6.10.1997 and consider his absorption on the post of Lecturer in Karmakand. He further sought a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to extend the sanction of the post of Lecturer in Karmakand in the University on substantive and permanent basis. The petitioner filed an application for impleadment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.6811 of 1999, in which this Court, vide order dated 23.2.1999, was pleased to direct that the petitioner would be provided an opportunity of hearing when the aforementioned writ petition is heard. In the meantime, the University published an advertisement on 9.2.1999 to fill the post of Lecturer in Karmakand in accordance with the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, whereupon the respondent no.6 filed another writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8147 of 1999, seeking the quashing of the advertisement dated 9.2.1999 and some other reliefs. Both these writ petitions have been got dismissed by the respondent no.6 as not pressed. According to the petitioner, after the respondent no.6 filed the aforesaid two writ petitions, he preferred an application seeking the review of the judgment and order dated 19.2.1999 passed by this Court in his earlier writ petition no.30738 of 1998, which application is still pending. According to the petitioner, one Dr. Suresh Chandra who was a Lecturer in the Sanskrit Department, made a representation to the Finance Officer of the University to provide information as to whether the respondent no.6 had ever been paid salary from the University on which the Finance Officer was pleased to inform that he was not paid any amount after the year 1990 and the records prior to the year 1990 were not available. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.6 never worked as Lecturer in the evening classes or a regular class and, therefore, no account number was ever allotted to him and his name did not find place in the salary bill of March, 1985. On the other hand, he was a permanent teacher in Adarsh Sewa Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Ishwargangi, Varanasi since 13.9.1982. He was never appointed as Lecturer in the University and he never worked as Lecturer but filed forged and manipulated appointment letter purported to have been issued by the Vice Chancellor of the University. It has been alleged by the petitioner that according to the own admission of the respondent no.6, he was a teacher in Adarsh Sewa Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Ishwargangi, Varanasi and he had worked as a Lecturer in Dharmik Anushthan and Karmakand Vibhag in the session 1985-86. Despite the stand of the University authorities in the counter affidavit in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.30738 of 1998, the Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 29.6.1999, vide its decision on item no.19, authorised the Vice Chancellor of the University to take a decision after enquiry about the regularisation/absorption of the services of the respondent no.6. The Registrar of the University, vide letter dated 10.7.1999, had issued the appointment letter to the respondent no.6 on the post of temporary Lecturer in Karmakand. The petitioner met the Registrar on 17.7.1999 and requested him to provide a copy of the order of the Vice Chancellor, which was declined on account of it being confidential. The appointment of the respondent no.6 on the post of temporary Lecturer in Karmakand in the University is under challenge in the present writ petition on the ground that he was working as a teacher in Adarsh Sewa Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Ishwargangi, Varanasi and had never worked as a Lecturer in the University. He was not paid any salary by the University and, therefore, the question of his regularisation, de hors the Rules, was not permissible. The appointment of the respondent no.6, made on the basis of the letter of the State Government dated 6.10.1997, is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 31(1)(3)(b) of the Act are also not applicable.
(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by Ram Lal Prasad, Office Superintendent of the University, it has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer on a consolidated pay of Rs.500/- p.m. in Dharmik Anushthan and Karmakand with the approval of the Executive Council pursuant to the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 12.9.1984, which was purely temporary in nature. At that time, the post was not sanctioned. The petitioner continued to serve as such from 12.9.1984 to 31.5.1985 and 20.8.1985 to 30.6.1986. The evening classes had nothing to do with the petitioner and Dharmik Anushthan and Karmakand is not a regular department in the University. The appointment of the respondent no.6 had been made on the basis of the resolution passed by the Executive Council authorising the Vice Chancellor to take necessary action and, therefore, the Vice Chancellor after considering the entire matter, vide order dated 10.7.1999, had regularised the services of the respondent no.6. It has further been stated that the petitioner is not entitled to regularisation of his services. The respondent no.6 was appointed on 4.12.1984. The petitioner''s locus standi to maintain the writ petition has also been questioned.;