ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against an order dated 1.12.2018, contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, whereby the Regional Higher Education Officer, Meerut has denied grant of permission to the Committee of Management of petitioner institution to fill up the post of Stenographer in the institution. The order states that the ban initially imposed on 15th March, 2012 is still operative and has not been revoked vide Government Order dated 11th July, 2013.
(2.) The issue as to whether the ban imposed on 15th March, 2012 continues to subsist or not has been examined by this Court in Writ Petition No. 26271 of 2018 (C/M of Mahatma Gandhi Shati Smarak Degree College, Ghazipur and another v. State of U.P. and others, vide following orders passed on 9.1.2019:- "1. Heard Sri Samarth Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is the Committee of Management of 'Mahatma Gandhi Shati Smarak Degree College, Garua Maqsoodpur, District Ghazipur' wherein education is being imparted upto graduation level. The institution is affiliated to Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. The appointment of teaching and non teaching staff in the college is regulated by provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 as well as the Statute of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. It appears that a vacancy arose on a sanction post of Class-III employee in the institution on account of retirement of one Mahendra Kumar Rai on 30.6.2014. The Committee of Management of the Institution made an application for grant of permission to the Regional Higher Education Officer for filling up of the post. It is alleged that on account of dispute in the office of officiating Principal in the institution, post itself could not be filled immediately. However, attempt was made to fill up the post again in the year 2018 and permission was sought for the purposes from the concerned educational authorities. The Director of Education (Higher Education) by his order dated 4.9.2018 has refused permission to fill up the post by relying upon Government Order dated 15.3.2012, as per which, a ban was imposed to fill up all Class-Ill posts in such institutions. It was also stated that description of posts have also not been given by the petitioner committee of management. 3. The order dated 4.9.2018 is assailed on the ground that initial ban imposed on 15.3.2012 was revoked by subsequent Government Order dated 11.7.2013 and, therefore, refusal by the Director to permit petitioner to fill up the post, is wholly arbitrary. 4. Taking cognizance of the aforesaid contention, following orders were passed in the matter on 12.12.2018:- "This writ petition is directed against an order dated 4.9.2018, whereby request of the Committee of Management to make appointment on Class-Ill post in the degree college has been refused. Perusal of the order would go to show that the reason assigned for passing the order impugned is a ban imposed on 15.3.2012 by the State Government. Attention of the Court has been invited to a subsequent order dated 11th July, 2013, whereby in respect of the degree college, the ban has already been lifted. Submission is that the reason assigned for declining the petitioner to fill the post is arbitrary. Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions. Put up as fresh on 2.1.2019". 5. Learned Standing Counsel has obtain instructions, according to which the State Government vide Government Order dated 11.7.2013 has lifted the ban only in respect of posts which had fallen vacant till 11.7.2013, and that the vacancy, in the present case, since has arisen after 11.7.2013, therefore, ban imposed earlier vide order dated 15.3.2012 would continue to remain invoked. 6. Government Order dated 15.3.2012, which is made the basis by the concerned authorities for declining grant of permission to fill up the post is extracted hereinafter: ... VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED... 8. The Government Order dated 11.7.2013 is categorical inasmuch as State Government in para-3 of the Government Order has taken note of difficulties that are arising in the functioning of educational institutions on account of ban imposed. It was in that context that while lifting the ban, the State Government clarified that 1043 posts which had fallen vacant till then would be open to be filled. The difficulty created in the institution on account of Government Order dated 15.3.2012 was noted and the ban was lifted, accordingly. It can not be construed that notwithstanding the subsequent Government Order dated 11.7. 2013, the previous Government Order imposing ban would continue to apply. In case such contention is accepted, the ban imposed vide Government Order dated 11.7.2013 alone would be lifted while for all vacancies created, thereafter the ban would continue to apply. 9. There is absolutely no justification for any such distinction to be drawn based upon the date specified i.e. 11.7.2013. Such a categorization/classification can not be construed as a reasonable classification inasmuch as it would have no intelligible differentia or object which is sought to be achieved. The same Government Order dated 15.3.2012 was pressed as being the ground for denial of permission for filling up vacancies in Intermediate institution also. The Government Order on 15.3.2012, was also followed by subsequent Government Order dated 23.5.2013. After taking note of both the Government Orders, this Court in Vipin v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (7) ADJ 274, has been pleased to hold that ban would not be available for the purposes of denying institution to fill up the post itself. No specific provision has otherwise been shown to the Court under the applicable statutory scheme which could have been invoked for the purposes of issuance of Government Order dated 15.3.2012. The said Government Order, otherwise, is general in nature and its applicability upon the institutions of higher leaving stands lifted under the Government Order dated 11.7.2013. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Director of Education dated 4.9.2018 cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. 10. The petitioner committee of management shall submit details of posts of the institution along with certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. The Director concerned shall pass a fresh order keeping in view the observations made above within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of."
(3.) In view of the order dated 9.1.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 26271 of 2018, the order impugned cannot be sustained.;