Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1880 (ALL)

AVANISH PRAKASH SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-06-21

ARUN TANDON, RAJESH CHANDRA

body2010
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Petitioners who are two in number claim to be appointed on Mandeya against the substantive vacancies which were available in Udai Pratap Autonomous College, Varanasi. The appointment was made in terms of the Government order dated 7th April, 1998 where under payment to such Mandeya Teachers were to be made on per lecture basis subject to the maximum provided. Their appointment was to commence in July end with the close of Academic Session. Clause 3 of the Government order further provided that continuance of such teachers appointed on Mandeya for the next academic session would require fresh selection for the purpose. It is stated that the petitioner alongwith other candidates filed writ petition No. 27167 of 2007 before this Court seeking continuance as teacher on Mandeya against the available vacancy without under going the process of selection for the next academic session. The writ Court passed an interim order providing that the teachers working on Mandeya shall continue as such till regular appointment is made on the post in question. 2. Thus on the statement made by the counsel for the petitioners this Court has no hesitation to record that the right of the petitioners to continue as teachers of Mandeya in the institution against the post was subject to the condition that such appointment would come to an automatic end when a regular teacher is appointment after due selection on the post. 3. From paragraph 17 of the present writ petition it is established that Dr. Pushpraj Sonkar and Dr. Rakesh Kumar have been selected by U.P. Higher Education Service Commission under advertisement No. 41 for the post held by the petitioners earlier and they have also been appointed. In view of the aforesaid fact the interim order passed by the Court in writ petition No. 27167 of 2007 cannot be the basis for the continuance of the petitioner any further. 4. By means of the present writ petition the petitioners contend that two subsequent vacancies have fallen vacant in the institution due to retirement of one Sri Badri Nath Singh and second Dr. Parmatma Nand Singh and it is again these fresh vacancies, the management of the institution has made a proposal for continuance of the petitioner under letter dated 15th June, 2010. Parmatma Nand Singh and it is again these fresh vacancies, the management of the institution has made a proposal for continuance of the petitioner under letter dated 15th June, 2010. The petitioners seek consideration of the papers so transmitted to the Regional Higher Education Officer for continuance of the petitioner against the newly available vacancies because of their earlier appointment of Mandeya teachers. Reliance has also been placed upon the order of the Division Bench of this Court passed in writ petition No. 11124 of 2009 Smt. Dr. Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others for the purpose. 5. We have heard counsel for the petitioners and have examined the records. We are of the considered opinion that the earlier appointment of petitioners against the existing vacancies in the year 2007 was subject to the condition that it will come to an end on appointment of regular candidate on recommendation of the commission to similar effect is the order passed by Court in writ petition No. 27167 of 2007 as has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right to continue as Mandeya teacher against any subsequent vacancies which which may have caused in the institution because of retirement of two teachers namely Sri Badri Nath Singh and Dr. Parmatma Nand Singh. Against these fresh vacancies appointment on Mandeya has to be made after advertisement and following the Government Order applicable on the subject dated 7.4.1998. The resolution of the committee of management directing adjustment of the petitioner against the subsequent vacancies is patently arbitrary and not in accordance with the Government Order dated 7.4.1998. It is needless to emphasize that large number of candidates must become eligible for the said post, for appointment on Mandeya between the period the petitioner was earlier appointed and till the fresh vacancy are caused in the institution is advertised. Any order to continue the petitioner against new vacancies would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. At this stage counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner have taught earlier for number of years, they have teaching experience and should be continued as teacher on Mandeya. The contention has only been stated to be rejected. 7. 6. At this stage counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner have taught earlier for number of years, they have teaching experience and should be continued as teacher on Mandeya. The contention has only been stated to be rejected. 7. Selection for appointment as teachers on Mandeya under the Government Order dated 7.4.1998 does not provide for any such adjustment of teacher against such subsequent vacancies and nor any preference, on the strength of earlier working as teacher on Mandeya has been provided for. 8. So far the order of the Division Bench of this Court passed in writ petition No. 11124 of 2009 is concerned. Suffice to record that no legal proposition has been laid down by the judgment. Only a direction was issued to consider the request made as per the law. The law has been explained by this Court. Therefore, no further consideration by the Regional Higher Education Officer is required. 9. At this stage counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be granted liberty to apply and they be considered. It is not necessary for this Court to issue any such direction that as the petitioner if eligible in terms of advertisement published can always apply and their application shall be taken care of by the authority concerned as per the conditions applicable. 10. The writ petition is dismissed.