Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2194 (ALL)

SEEMA MALIK, ETC. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2006-09-04

G.P.SRIVASTAVA, SUSHIL HARKAULI

body2006
JUDGMENT By the Court—Writ Petition No. 23870 of 2004 was disposed of along with a bunch of cases by an order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 2.9.2004. That writ petition was filed by one Dr. Virendra Singh with the averments that he was working as a lecturer on honorarium basis under a Scheme of 1998 promulgated vide U.P. Government Order dated 7.4.1998. This Scheme was abandoned and thereafter restored. Whether the scheme should or should not continue is an issue said to be pending before the Supreme Court. The final order dated 2-9-2004 passed on the writ petition of Dr. Virendra Singh basically directs that till the decision about the scheme is taken by the Supreme Court, the lecturer i.e. Dr. Virendra Singh, if he was working on honorarium basis would not replaced by another lecturer on honorarium basis. However Dr. Virendra Singh could be replaced either if the vacancy was filled up by a regularly selected candidate from the Commission or if the Supreme Court upheld the abolition of the scheme of having lecturers appointed on honorarium basis. 2. The decision of this Court in the writ petition of Dr. Virendra Singh does not amount to adjudication as to whether Dr. Virendra Singh was or was not working as a lecturer on honorarium basis or as to whether Dr. Virendra Singh was or was not validly appointed for such purpose. 3. An application dated 11.10.2004 being Misc. Application No. 189444 of 2004 has been moved by Dr. Seema Malik (along with an application for condonation of delay) praying that the final order of this Court disposing of the writ petition of Dr. Virendra Singh should be recalled. 4. Initially, after hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel representing Dr. Seema Malik, an interim order had been passed suspending the operation of the order dated 2.9.2004. The recall application (tagged along with the writ petition No. 23116/2004) has been heard by this Bench, and not by the Bench which had passed the final order dated 2.9.2004, by virtue of an order dated 27.10.2004 of the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice, passed on the recall application mentioned above, assigning the matter to this Bench. It appears that Dr. Seema Malik had filed the Writ Petition No. 23116 of 2004 on 19.6.2004 and had obtained an interim order dated 22.6.2004 permitting Dr. It appears that Dr. Seema Malik had filed the Writ Petition No. 23116 of 2004 on 19.6.2004 and had obtained an interim order dated 22.6.2004 permitting Dr. Seema Malik to continue on the post on which she alleged to be performing her duties (a) till the next date of listing, or (b) till a regularly selected candidate is sent by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission - whichever was earlier. 5. The interim order dated 22.6.2004 has not been extended since then. However, in that writ petition of Dr. Seema Malik a counter affidavit has been filed by the Management of the College alleging that the interim order dated 22.6.2004 had been obtained by Dr. Seema Malik by a deliberate mis-statement of facts. It is alleged in the counter affidavit that Dr. Seema Malik made an incorrect statement that she was working in the College on the date when Dr. Seema Malik filed the writ petition or obtained the interim order; whereas actually she had since long not been working as lecturer on honorarium basis and in her place Dr. Virendra Singh had already been appointed. Large number of documents have been enclosed in corroboration of this fact. It has been shown that Dr. Seema Malik was appointed as a lecturer on honorarium basis with the approval of the Director of Education dated 10.10.2002 in the subject of ‘Economics’. That approval was only for the academic session 2002-03. She did not continue and never worked in 2003-04 session, and she obtained the interim order from this Court at the end of 2003-04 session. 6. A letter of the Management dated 7-6-2004 addressed to the Regional Higher Education Officer has been filed along with rejoinder affidavit of Dr. Smt. Seema Malik and she has relied on the same. But it is clearly mentioned in clause 4 of that letter dated 7.6.2004 that Dr. Seema Malik has not taught at all in the College in the session 2003-04. 7. For the same subject of ‘economics’, Dr. Virendra Singh’s appointment is mentioned in the letter of the college dated 15.5.2004 and approval of that appointment has been sought from the Director. As against so much of documentary material and the versions of Dr. Virendra Singh and of the College Management, learned Counsel for the petitioner Dr. 7. For the same subject of ‘economics’, Dr. Virendra Singh’s appointment is mentioned in the letter of the college dated 15.5.2004 and approval of that appointment has been sought from the Director. As against so much of documentary material and the versions of Dr. Virendra Singh and of the College Management, learned Counsel for the petitioner Dr. Seema Malik wants us, in our writ jurisdiction to investigate this highly disputed question of fact, and to record a finding that the bald statement of Dr. Seema Malik that she had been working in the College on the date of the interim order dated 22.6.2004 should be believed and all documents and the version of both the opposing parties i.e. the Management and Dr. Virendra Singh should be disbelieved. Unfortunately, that is not law of the writs. 8. In the circumstances, we reject the Recall/Review Application No. 189444 of 2004 of Dr. Seema Malik and for the same reasons, we also dismiss the writ petition of Dr. Seema Malik being Writ Petition No. 23116 of 2004, which although cognizable by a single Judge has been tagged with the petition of Dr. Virendra Singh and therefore has been placed before us. 9. A copy of this order will be placed in the record of the Civil Misc. Recall/Review Application also. Order Accordingly. ———