Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2395 (ALL)

DALJEET SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2007-09-19

AMITAVA LALA, S.P.MEHROTRA

body2007
JUDGMENT By the Court.—In this writ petition, the writ petitioner has challenged two orders dated 5.11.2004 and 17.11.2004 being Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition. Under Annexure 2, financial power of the petitioner was withdrawn while acting as Officiating Principal of the Mahatma Gandhi Post Graduate College, Fatehpur. Such order was passed by the Joint Director of Education on behalf of the Director of Education (Higher Education), Directorate of Higher Education, Allahabad. Thereafter, the Vice-Chancellor made necessary approval on 17.11.2004 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) and approved the financial power to the next Senior most Lecturer, i.e. Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava in place of the Officiating Principal, the petitioner herein under Statute 13.20 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 i.e. First Statutes of the University of Kanpur, 1977. 2. The petitioner made allegation about the power of the Director of the Higher Education, U.P. Directorate of Education, Allahabad. According to the petitioner the Director of Higher Education has no authority to withdraw, cancel or rescind the power of the petitioner. 3. The contentions of the petitioner have been strongly opposed by the learned Counsel appearing for the State University as well as newly appointed officiating Principal of the concerned college. Their arguments as contended before the Court, hit the very root of the matter. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State and University contended that the person concerned has voluntarily sought for removal from the post of the Officiating Principal is clear from the communications being dated 25th June, 2004 and 23rd October, 2004 vide Annexures S.C.A. 1 and 2 to the Supplementary Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Now the petitioner cannot turn around and challenge the order. 5. However, we have also to check up whether the Director of Higher Education has any authority to pass such order. We find Section 2(e) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 which give definition of the Director as follows : “Director means the Director of Education (Higher Education) and includes Joint Director of Education or Deputy Director of Education authorised by him in this behalf.” 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that such power cannot be made available under the Uttar Pradesh Universities Act, 1973, particularly, when there was no definition of the Director of Education in the said Act. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that such power cannot be made available under the Uttar Pradesh Universities Act, 1973, particularly, when there was no definition of the Director of Education in the said Act. Further learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Chapter XI-A of the Act which deals with the payment of salary to the teachers and other employees of a Degree College. According to us such submission is incidental factual submission. But we are concerned about jurisdiction/authority of the Director of Education. We find that the Director of Education, Joint Director of Education, Deputy Director of Education have been empowered with regard to failure on the part of the authority of the institution or institute to make payment of such dues. 7. However, we cannot hold that there is complete ouster of power or jurisdiction of Director of Higher Education and his subordinates in case of delegation. The Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 is a later Act promulgated on 3rd October, 1980 for the purpose of establishing a service commission for the selection of teachers for appointment to the Colleges affiliated to or recognised by the University, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Had it been the case of complete ouster of jurisdiction of Director of Higher Education, then it would have been a fit case for the purposes of consideration by this Court. 8. Since this Court finds that there is no complete ouster of jurisdiction of the Director of Higher Education and his office, we are of the view that all factual aspect can be agitated before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. 9. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with the observation that the petitioner is not debarred from proceeding before the Chancellor, in accordance with law, for the purpose of redressal of his grievance, if any, and if so, advised. 10. In view of the above, the interim order passed earlier cannot continue and the same is vacated. No order is passed as to costs. ————