- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. Amar Nath Pal, the petitioner, has challenged the legality and validity of the orders dated 7th of February, 1991, 1st of January, 1999 and 31st of October, 1992 passed by the Registrar, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi, the respondent No. 1 by which he rejected the objections of the petitioner filed against seniority list relating to routine grade clerk.
(2.) THE Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi is a 'university' within the meaning of U. P. State Universities Act and is governed by the provisions of U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 and known as Sanskrit University. It has framed its Statutes in year 1977. It is not in dispute that the services of the employees of the University are governed by the provisions of U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, the Statutes framed thereunder and the various Government orders issued by the State Government from time to time. The petitioner was initially appointed as tube well operator in the year 1979 and was confirmed on the said post in the year 1983, being qualified for class III post was granted temporary promotion on the post of routine grade clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- as per order dated October 17, 1982 passed by the respondent No. 1. The vacancy on the post of routine grade junior clerk on which the petitioner was appointed occurred on account of leave taken by one Doodh Nath Singh, stenographer (Social Welfare ). One Vishnu Das was granted temporary promotion on the leave vacancy of Shri Doodh Nath Singh and on the resultant vacancy of routine grade clerk the petitioner was promoted. On the resultant vacancy of the petitioner, one Prahlad was granted ad hoc promotion on the post of tube well operator, vide order dated 17-10-1992 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition ). It is admitted that the petitioner joined his duties and is continuing as such. Trouble for the petitioner arose subsequently on October 31, 1992 when the Registrar issued an order clarifying the position that the promotion of the petitioner on the post of routine grade clerk is not on an approved post i. e. on an unapproved post (Annexure-2 to the writ petition ). A seniority list dated 3rd of September, 1997 was published wherein the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 44. The petitioner filed objections to the aforesaid seniority list staking his claim that his name should have been placed at serial No. 16. The said objections/representation dated 18th of September, 1997 remained pending due to inaction of the respondent No. 1. It was followed by another representation dated 28th of April, 1998 wherein it was pleaded that the petitioner having been granted promotion on class III post of routine grade clerk in compliance of the Government order of 1992 was entitled to be treated on regular post of routine grade clerk and also that vacancy has become substantive in the meantime on account of death of Doodh Nath (stenographer), the promotion of the petitioner should be treated as a regular promotion against a substantive vacancy. Reliance has been placed upon another Government order dated January 22, 1985 and it was contended that the petitioner cannot be shown against an unapproved post. Since no action was taken on the representations of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 31023 of 1998 claiming a writ in the nature of mandamus to decide the objections of the petitioner in respect of the seniority list dated September 3rd, 1997 which was finally disposed of by the judgment dated September 23, 1998 directing the respondent to decide the objections of the petitioner within two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order in accordance with law. The Respondent No. 1 by the order dated February 7, 1999 rejected the representation of the petitioner, which is impugned in the present writ petition. In the counter-affidavit of Shri Kishan Chand Mehrotra filed on behalf of the respondents, the factual aspect of the writ petition has not been disputed. The only defence as put up in the counter-affidavit is that in the University several persons have been appointed in excess of number of posts of class III and IV category. Such posts for the sake of clarity are called 'unapproved posts'. A settlement was arrived at by the University with the Staff Union, in order to do justice to such unapproved employees of Class III and IV on January 7, 1986 wherein it has been settled that, if any, new appointment is made on class IV or class III posts it will not affect the seniority of previously appointed persons who are working on the unapproved posts. In this view of the matter, although the petitioner was initially appointed on approved post while granting promotion he has been given promotion on an approved post of routine grade clerk and a senior most persons of unapproved class III posts has been given status of approved post on the vacancy occurred in approved post. This is explicit from the Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In other words, as per the terms of the settlement if the University decides to fill up any vacancy in class III or class IV firstly it will absorb the persons who are working in the University on any unapproved or supernumerary post. On this basis, the order dated October 31, 1992 has been sought to be justified.
(3.) IN the rejoinder affidavit, besides reiterating the stand taken up by the petitioner in the writ petition, it has been stated that copy of the alleged settlement has not been filed alongwith the counter-affidavit and the same being not in accordance with the provisions of the State Universities Act or the Statutes framed by. the University, even if there is any such settlement, is void and illegal. Heard Shri Rajiv Misra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anil Tiwari, the learned Counsel for the University. During the pendency of the writ petition an application to implead certain persons was filed, which was allowed. Notices were issued to them but none of them have filed any counter- affidavit.;