Jayant Banerji, J. - (1.) By means of this Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules the appellants-respondent nos. 5 and 6 have sought to challenge the judgment dated 13 February, 2018 in Writ-A No.5409 of 2018 by means of which the learned Judge has directed the Committee of Management to ensure the joining of the petitioner-respondent no.5 forthwith in the institution
(2.) The background of the case is that the petitioner-respondent no.5 applied for selection on the post of Pracharya in pursuance of an advertisement dated 16 January 2014 issued by the appellants-respondent nos. 5 and 6. After an interview the petitioner-respondent no.5 was declared successful and thereafter the Competent Authority passed an order dated 23 March 2016 granting approval to the selection and appointment of the petitioner-respondent no.5 on the post of Pracharya of Sri Mahat Paleshwar Hari Prapanna Ramanuj, Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Sahatwar, District Ballia (hereinafter referred to as the "institution"). Thereafter the Registrar of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi1, to which University the institution is affiliated, by means of a communication dated 23 March 2016 informed the appellant-respondent nos.5 and 6 regarding the approval granted by the Vice-Chancellor of the University in respect of the appointment of the petitioner-respondent no.5 on the post of Pracharya. However, it is alleged that despite the clear approval granted by the Vice-Chancellor of the University and duly communicated to the Committee of Management of the institution, even after passage of long time the petitioner-respondent no.5 was not appointed by the Committee of Management and as such the petitioner-respondent no.5 filed a writ petition being Writ-A No.7368 of 2017. By means of an order dated 15 February 2017 the writ petition was disposed of by permitting the petitioner-respondent no.5 to approach the Deputy Director of Education (Sanskrit) with a fresh representation, which was directed to be decided expeditiously. By means of an order dated 12 October 2017, the Deputy Director of Education (Sanskrit) decided the representation of the petitioner-respondent no.5 after hearing all the parties concerned including the appellants-respondent nos.5 and 6 and permitted the petitioner-respondent no.5 to take charge of the post of Pracharya in the institution.
(3.) It appears that the appellants-respondent nos. 5 and 6 challenged the aforesaid order dated 12 October 2017 by filing another writ petition being Writ-A No.62714 of 2017, which was dismissed as withdrawn on the request of the Committee of Management on 9 January 2018. However, even thereafter when the petitioner-respondent no.5 was not permitted to join, the petitioner-respondent no.5 filed Writ-A No.5409 of 2018 praying for a direction to the appellant-respondent nos. 5 and 6 to permit him to join in the institution as Pracharya. The learned Judge after considering the entire background of the case directed the Committee of Management to ensure the joining of the petitioner-respondent no.5 forthwith. The relevant extract of the judgment of the learned Judge is reproduced below: "Having heard rival submissions and perusing the entire material available on record, the Court is of the considered opinion that once in compliance of the order dated 15.2.2017 in Writ Petition No.7368 of 2017 the Deputy Director of Education (Sanskrit) has passed the order dated 12.10.2017 after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and the candidature of the petitioner was found to be in order and once the said order was challenged in the Writ Petition No.62714 of 2017 by the management and at the crucial point of time when the entire record pertaining to appointment of the petitioner was available, the management had run away from the battlefield by withdrawing the writ petition and at no point of time they have taken any leave for assailing the validity of the said order and moreover once even the Vice Chancellor in his turn has also approved the said selection in question on 23.3.2016, then in such situation, at this stage the management cannot raise any question regarding the validity of the selection in question. The management is directed to ensure the joining of the petitioner forthwith. In case there is any resentment or objection, the District Inspector of Schools will be at liberty to proceed according to law by appointing Authorised Controller and to pass order for single operation against the management. Considering the conduct of the management, the Court has also proposed heavy cost of Rs.50,000/- against the management but after great persuasion of learned counsel for the management, the management is exempted from cost. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.";