- (1.) THE Court- U.P. Higher Education Services Selection Board published an advertisement dated 31.01.1995 for the purposes of selection and appointment on the post of Principal in various affiliated degree colleges. Respondent No. 6 Mahendra Pratap Singh applied, he was selected and was assigned a place in the select panel by the Commission. Under the order of the Director Higher Education dated 3.8.1995. He was empanelled for appointment in Daya Nand College of Law, Kanpur. The Committee of Management of the college offered appointment, Sri M.P. Singh joined in the said institution on 12.12.1995. However, objections were raised with regard to the appointment of M.P. Singh as Principal of the Law College and as a consequence thereto he was transferred to Nagrik Degree College Janghai, District Jaunpur vide order of the Director dated 12.7.2000 as per the directions of the State Government dated 11.4.2000. These two orders were challenged by M.P. Singh by means of Writ Petition No. 530 of 2001. The Board of Management of Daya Nand College of Law, Kanpur also filed Writ Petition No. 48183 of 2000 questioning the appointment of M.P. Singh as Principal of Law College. Both the writ petitions were decided by a common judgement of the Division Bench. The writ petition filed by M.P. Singh was allowed and that filed by Committee of Management was dismissed.
(2.) THE matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by Bar Council of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgement reported in (2007) 2, SCC 202 Bar Council of India Vs. Board of Management, Dayanand College of Law and others held that appointment of M.P. Singh as Principal of Law College was illegal and, therefore, he cannot function therein. It was provided that in terms of the interim order of Hon'ble Supreme court Sri M.P. Singh has been transferred as Principal of another institution but he has not been permitted to take charge. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 18 of the order, therefore, provided that the authorities and the High Court may deal with the grievance of M.P. Singh regarding his status and posting in expeditious manner. For the purposes of this petition it is worthwhile to reproduce Paragraph 18 of the Apex Court judgement:- "We find that consistent with the Advocates Act and the Rules of the Bar Council of India, Respondent 5 could not have been appointed as the Principal of law college, however, eminent he might be as a philosopher, friend and guide to the students and his competence to teach Ethics could be recognized. It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent 5 that he was not responsible for his appointment as the Principal of the Law College and he has suffered because of this controversy which is not of his making and since he was relieved from the post of the Principal of the Law College subsequent to the interim order passed by this Court in these appeals. It is submitted that though he was transferred as the Principal of another institution, he could not take charge because of some interim orders passed by the High Court in a writ petition filed by some interested persons. Now, that we have clarified the position, we have, no doubt, that the authorities that be and the High Court will deal with grievances of Respondent 5 regarding his status and posting in an expeditious manner, if moved in that behalf and take an appropriate decision consistent with what we have stated in this judgement." The State Government vide order dated 3rd July, 2007 in exercise of powers under Section 13 sub Clause 5 of the U.P. Higher Education Services Selection Baord Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1980) approved placement of Sri M.P. Singh as Principal of Dr. Shyameshwar Mahavidyalay, Sikariganj, District Gorakhpur. The Director accordingly issued a letter dated 27.9.2007 directing the Committee of Management of the institution to offer appointment to the petitioner as Principal against the vacancy on the post of Principal caused on 30.06.2007. Sri M.P. Singh is stated to have joined in pursuance thereof.
(3.) THE petitioner before this Court who was working as officiating Principal of the Institution after the retirement of Sri Buddhi Saran has filed this writ petition for a writ of quo warranto as well as for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.09.2007.;