Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3423 (ALL)

Y. K. VARSHNEY v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-11-02

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, V.K.SHUKLA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Dr. Y.K. Varshneya, an Associate Professor at the Department of Accounts and Law, Faculty of Commerce, S.V. College, Aligarh, is before this Court questioning the validity of impugned placement order dated 25th May, 2011 passed by Director of Education (Higher), U.P. at Allahabad recommending Dr. Arun Kumar Dixit to be appointed as Principal of the Institution concerned. 2. Brief background of the case, as is emanating in the present writ petition, is that in the District of Aligarh there is an Institution known as Shri Varshneya College, a Post Graduate College affiliated with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra. Selection and appointment on the post of Principal and Teachers has to be made strictly in consonance with provisions as contained under the U.P. State Universities Act and U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act and other allied provisions. 3. In the Institution concerned, Dr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, who has been performing and discharging duties as Principal, attained his age of superannuation and the Managing Committee, in its turn, sent request to U.P. Higher Education Service Commission in terms of Section 12 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 for filling up the said vacancy. The said vacancy in question has been subject matter of Advertisement No.36 published by U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980. The said vacancy later-on was included in Advertisement No.39 and in pursuance of Advertisement No.39, the select list has been prepared by U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, Allahabad. 4. Qua the Institution in question, the Director of Education (Higher), U.P. at Allahabad vide his order dated 28th December, 2008 issued the placement order in favour of Dr. R.M.S. Senger. Dr. R.M.S. Senger in pursuance of said placement order was appointed as Principal of the college and he joined the office and thereafter he resigned on 10th August, 2009 from the post of Principal. After resignation of Dr. R.M.S. Senger, the Managing Committee appointed Dr. K.L. Gupta as Officiating Principal and after his retirement Dr. S.P.S. Jadon was appointed as Officiating Principal. 5. Petitioner has stated that after resignation of Dr. R.M.S. Senger while Dr. S.P.S. Jadon was working as Officiating Principal, the Director of Education (Higher), U.P. at Allahabad made placement in favour of Dr. Naresh Kumar as the Principal of the college and thereafter Dr. S.P.S. Jadon was appointed as Officiating Principal. 5. Petitioner has stated that after resignation of Dr. R.M.S. Senger while Dr. S.P.S. Jadon was working as Officiating Principal, the Director of Education (Higher), U.P. at Allahabad made placement in favour of Dr. Naresh Kumar as the Principal of the college and thereafter Dr. S.P.S. Jadon moved Writ Petition No.572 (SB) of 2015 and the net effect of the same was that Dr. Naresh Kumar, on account of the pendency of the writ petition, did not join the college and during this interregnum period, Dr. S.P.S. Jadon attained his age of superannuation, then Dr. Vipin Chandra Varshneya was appointed as officiating Principal. Thereafter theýÿ Director of Education (Higher), U.P. at Allahabad made recommendation in favour of Dr. Arun Kumar Dixit vide order dated 25th May, 2011 and the said placement order is subject matter of challenge before this Court by the petitioner, claiming that he is the senior most teacher, after Dr. Vipin Chandra Varshney has retired on 27.1.2013 and action taken is per-se bad. Earlier Dr. Vipin Chandra Varshney has also challenged the same recommendation by means of Writ Petition No. 36007 of 2011, in the said writ petition, petitioner had moved intervenor application, the writ petition itself has been dismissed as not pressed on 4.8.2014. 6. The claim in question, that has been so made, has been resisted by filing counter affidavit and therein order of the Director of Education (Higher), U.P. at Allahabad dated 9th March, 2011 has been appended and mention has been also made that recommended candidate has already joined on 11th June, 2011. 7. To the said counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit has been filed. 8. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal. 9. Shri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that Dr. R.M.S. Senger had joined his service as Principal and thereafter he resigned, then denovo fresh selection process ought to have been taken and the vacancy in question could not have been filled, as has been done in the present case and specially when he has not joined pursuant to earlier recommendation accordingly, this Court should come to the rescue and reprieve of the petitioner by directing for holding of fresh de-novo selection. 10. 10. The claim in question has been resisted by learned Standing Counsel as well as Shri Ashok Kumar Rai, Advocate by submitting that, in the present case, the recommendations made in favour of Dr. Arun Kumar Dixit is strictly in consonance with the statutory provisions and in view of this, once regularly selected candidate has arrived on the scene and has joined, then none of the legal rights of petitioner could be said to be infringed. 11. Smt. Archana Singh, learned Advocate representing U.P. Higher Education Service Commission has also been asked by us to assist the Court, and she has also proceeded to submit that recommendation so made is strictly withing the four corners of statutory parameters and there is no overreaching/overstepping of authority, if any, at any level. In order to appreciate the respective arguments, the relevant provisions of U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 is being extracted below: “12. Procedure for appointment of teachers— (1) Every appointment as a teacher of any college shall be made by the management in accordance with the provisions of this Act and every appointment made in contravention thereof shall be void. (2) The management shall intimate the existing vacancies and the vacancies, likely to be caused during the course of the ensuing academic year, to the Director at such time and in such manner, as may be prescribed. Explanation the expression academic year means the period of 12 months commencing on July 1. (3) The director shall notify to the commission at such time and in such manner as may be prescribed a subject wise consolidated list of vacancies intimated to him from all colleges. (4) The manner of selection of persons for appointment to the posts of teachers of a college shall be such, as may be determined by regulation: Provided that the commission shall with a view to inviting talented persons give wide publicity in the State to the vacancies notified to it under sub- Section (3): Provided further that the candidates shall be required to indicate their order of preference for the various colleges, vacancies wherein have been advertised. 13. 13. Recommendation of commission.—(1) the commission shall, as soon as possible, after the notification of vacancies to it under sub- Section (3) of Section 12, hold interview (with or without written examination of the candidates and send to the Director a list recommending such number of names of candidates found most suitable in each subject as may be, so far as practicable, twenty-five per cent more than the number of vacancies in that subject. Such manes shall be arranged in order of merit show in the interview, or in the examination and interview if any examination is held. (2) The lists sent by the Commission shall be valid till the receipt of a new list from the commission. (3) The Director shall having due regard in the prescribed manner, to the order to preference it any indicated by the candidates under the second proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 12, intimate to the management the name of a candidate from the list referred to in sub- Section (1) for being appointed in the vacancy intimated under sub- Section (2) of Section 12. (4) Where a vacancy occurs due to death, resignation or otherwise during the period or validity of the list referred to in sub-section (2) and such vacancy has not been notified to the commission under sub-section (3) of Section 12, the Director may intimate to the management the name of a candidate from such list for appointment in such vacancy. 5. Notwithstanding anything in the proceeding provision, where abolition of any post of teacher in any college, services of the persons substantively appointed to such post is terminated the State Government may make suitable order for his appointment in a suitable vacancy, whether notified under sub-section (3) of Section 12 or not in any other college, and thereupon the Director shall intimate to the management accordingly. 6. The Director shall send a copy of the intimation made under sub- Section (3) or sub-section (4) or sub-section (3) to the Candidate concerned. 14. Duty of management.—(1) the management shall, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of intimation under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of Section 13, issue appointment letter to the person whose name has been intimated. 14. Duty of management.—(1) the management shall, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of intimation under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of Section 13, issue appointment letter to the person whose name has been intimated. (2) Where the person referred to in sub-section (1) fails to join the post within the time allowed in the appointment letter or within such extended time as the management may allow in this behalf, or where such person is otherwise not available for appointment, the Director, shall on request of the management intimate fresh name from the list sent by the commission under sub-section (1) of Section 13 in the manner prescribed. 15. Inquiry by Director.—(1) Where any person is entitled to be appointed as a teacher in any College in accordance with Sections 12 to 14, but he is not so appointed by the management within the time provided therefore, he may apply to the Director for a direction under sub-section (2). (2) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Director may hold an inquiry, and if he is satisfied that the management has failed to appoint the applicant as a teacher in contravention of the provisions of this Act, he may by order, require- (a) the management to appoint the applicant as a teacher, and to pay him salary from the date specified sin the order; and, (b) the Principal of the College concerned to take work from him as a teacher. (3) The amount of salary, if any, due to such teacher shall, on a certificate issued by the Director, be recoverable by the Collector as arrears of land revenue.” 12. Bare perusal of the provisions quoted above would go to show that every appointment in the college has to be made by the Management in accordance with the provisions of the Act and every appointment made in contravention thereof has to be accepted as void. The Management under statutory provisions is obliged to intimate the existing vacancies and the vacancies likely to be caused during the course of the ensuing academic year to the Director at such time and in such manner, as may be prescribed. The Director is further obligated to notify to the commission at such time and in such manner as may be prescribed a subject wise consolidated list of vacancies intimated to him from all colleges. The Director is further obligated to notify to the commission at such time and in such manner as may be prescribed a subject wise consolidated list of vacancies intimated to him from all colleges. The manner of selection of persons for appointment to the posts of teachers of a college shall be such, as may be determined by regulation provided that the commission shall with a view to inviting talented persons give wide publicity in the State to the vacancies notified to it under sub- Section (3) of Section 12. The Commission shall after notification of vacancies as per sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act hold interview (with or without written examination of the candidates) and send to the Director a list recommending such number of names of candidates found most suitable and the commission is also entitled to recommend in each subject as may be, so far as practicable, twenty-five per cent more than the number of vacancies in that subject. The lifespan of the list sent by Commission is valid till the receipt of a new list from the commission and the Director in the matter of according placement is obligated to have due regard in the prescribed manner, to the order to preference, if any, indicated by the candidates under the second proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 12 and intimate to the management, the name of a candidate from the list referred to in sub- Section (1) for being appointed in the vacancy intimated under sub- Section (2) of Section 12. Sub Section (4) gives opportunity to the Director where a vacancy occurs due to death, resignation or otherwise during the period or validity of the list referred to in sub-section (2) and such vacancy has not been notified to the commission under sub-section (3) of Section 12, the Director may intimate to the management the name of a candidate from such list for appointment in such vacancy. After receiving the said recommendation, it is the duty of the management to issue appointment letter to the person whose name has been intimated under Section 14 of Act. After receiving the said recommendation, it is the duty of the management to issue appointment letter to the person whose name has been intimated under Section 14 of Act. In case Management fails to discharge its duty in terms of Section 14 of the Act, then Director of Education is obligated to make enquiry and ensure remedial measure in favour of teacher by ensuring salary and functioning after recording finding that Management has failed to appoint teacher in contravention of the provisions of this Act. 13. Now coming to the facts of the present case what we find from the record is that select list has been prepared by U.P. Higher Education Commission in reference of Advertisement No.39 on 2nd July, 2008, amongst the selected candidates at Item No.10, name of Dr. R.M.S. Senger was there and as far as Dr. Arun Kumar Dixit is concerned, his name finds place as Wait List candidate No. 1. 14. Pursuant to the recommendation so made by U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, Dr. R.S. Senger reported before the Management and the Management in its turn issued appointment letter on 10th August, 2009 and he performed and discharged his duties and thereafter tendered his resignation from the post of Principal on 15th December, 2009. 15. The Director of Education (Higher), U.P. at Allahabad in his order dated 9th March, 2011 has clearly proceeded to make a mention that Dr. R.M.S. Senger has already tendered his resignation and vacancy in question till date has not at all been notified or advertised and as such, the life span of the said list would continue till next list comes into existence. 16. Once such is the factual situation that is so emerging in the present case that Dr. R.M.S. Senger has tendered his resignation on 15th December, 2009 and the vacancy in question has not at all been notified to U.P. Higher Education Service Commission by the Director of Education Higher, U.P. at Allahabad as is fully reflected from the order passed by the Director of Education (Higher), U.P. at Allahabad, then the issue is can, in such a situation, the provisions of Section 13(4) of U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 could have been invoked by the Director for making recommendation in favour of Dr. Arun Kumar Dixit. 17. Arun Kumar Dixit. 17. Section 13(1) of the Act empowers Commission to make recommendation to Director of such number of candidates found most suitable in each subject as may be as far as practicable twenty five percent more than the number of vacancies in that subject duly arranged in the order of merit. Such a list is valid till the new receipt of Commission. Sub-section (3) empowers the Director to intimate the Management the name of candidate from the list referred to for being appointed in such vacancies. 18. Recommendation required to be made is of such number of candidates found most suitable in each subject alongwith twenty five percent more than the number of vacancies in each subject. Under sub-section (3) of Section 12, Director is required to notify to the Commission a subject-wise consolidated list of vacancies intimated to him from all the colleges. 19. “Subject” here finds its reference to the vacancies intimated from the college concern. The word “Subject” used here is synonymous to ‘Post’. Subject has live-link with the post of teacher meant for faculty, discipline, including the post of Principal as post of Principal are also intimated/notified and accordingly, restricted meaning is not required to be given to word “Subject” i.e. that it is only referable to faculty, discipline rather contextual interpretation has to be made as in the definition of “Teacher”, Principal is also included. Regulation 2(h) of U.P. Higher Education Service Commission (Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 1983 defined “Teacher” as a person employed for imparting instructions in a college and includes Principal. Accordingly, the Commission is fully empowered to recommend such number of candidates found most suitable for the post of Principal alongwith twenty five percent of the vacancies, more than the number of vacancies. 20. Here, in the present case, there is no issue on this fact, that life of select list has been there and the wait list in question could have been utilised during the subsistence of life span of the said list, by recommending name of candidate, against vacancy that has so occurred on account of death, resignation or otherwise. Such aspect of the matter has been subject matter of consideration before the Apex Court, in the case of Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, 1998 (3) SCC 45 . 21. Such aspect of the matter has been subject matter of consideration before the Apex Court, in the case of Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, 1998 (3) SCC 45 . 21. Vacancy admittedly, on the post of Principal, has occurred on account of resignation tendered by Dr. R.M.S. Senger, in such a situation, once Director Higher Education has not notified the vacancy to Commission, the Director of Education Higher was fully competent under Section 13(4) of the Act to make utilization of said list and make recommendation for being offered appointment on the post of Principal. 22. Much emphasis has been placed on the fact that name of Dr. Arun Kumar Dixit had already been recommended for a particular Institution where he failed to join and in view of this, a fresh recommendation in his favour could not have been made as it has been done in the present case rather his candidature on account of non-joining at the first institution ought to have been cancelled by instead of proceeding to provide him chance after chance. 23. A full Bench of our Court, in the case of Vinay Kumar v. Director of Education (Higher), Allahabad, 2005 ADJ 549 (FB) has spelled after considering the provisions of U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 as amended by U.P. Act No.2 of 1992 as well as the provisions of U.P. Higher Education Service Commission (Procedure for selection of Teachers) Regulation, 1983, that in the matter of according placement, the Director has to take into account only two things, in regard to every candidate, namely the merit position of candidate as determined under Section 13(1), and the preferential list of colleges or institution given by the candidate himself. Full Bench, as to how Director is to allot the candidate to different colleges based on these two items, as laid down in the case of Alka Rani v. Director of Education (Higher), 2003 (2) UPLBEC (DB) paragraph 9, has re-affirmed the same view alongwith first sentence of paragraph 10. 24. Petitioner’s submission is that once recommendation has been made in favour of Dr. Arun Kumar Dixit as Principal of Mathura Prasad Post Graduate college, Konch District Jalaun on 2.7.2010 and as he did not join, therefore the recommendation made on the second occasion is per-se bad and contrary to law on this score.. 25. 24. Petitioner’s submission is that once recommendation has been made in favour of Dr. Arun Kumar Dixit as Principal of Mathura Prasad Post Graduate college, Konch District Jalaun on 2.7.2010 and as he did not join, therefore the recommendation made on the second occasion is per-se bad and contrary to law on this score.. 25. The respondent No. 4 has come up with the specific case that he has been at serial No. 1 in the waiting list and other persons who were higher in the merit declined to join, therefore, the Director of Education (Higher), U.P. at Allahabad has acted well within its right in according placement to him and at earlier institution, at no point of time, he has ever joined and he has been requesting to accord placement to him. 26. At the outset before proceeding to answer the issue raised above, the judgements relied upon by the petitioner are being looked into. 27. In Km. Ragini Srivastava v. State of U.P., 1997 (2) UPLBEC 1093 this Court had considered the scheme of Section 12, 13 and 14 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 and held in para 6 that the list sent by the Commission remains valid till the receipt of new list from the Commission under sub-section 2 of Section 13. It was held:- “The process of selection and appointment comes to an end after a candidate has been selected, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and his name has been intimated to the management of a college by the Director, and he has been issued appointment letter, pursuant to such intimation. This process also gets exhausted if after a candidate is selected and his name is intimated by the Director having due regard to the order of preference intimated by him fore-stalls his appointment by the management by pleading that it is not possible for him to join the college. Once the appointment process is complete there remains no occasion for him to say that on account of his personal problems he should be appointed to a vacancy for which selection process contemplated under the Act was not gone through. Once the appointment process is complete there remains no occasion for him to say that on account of his personal problems he should be appointed to a vacancy for which selection process contemplated under the Act was not gone through. The fact that in the past recommendations were made by the Director for the vacancies which were not notified and for which stipulated selection process had not been gone through would not form the ground for our holding that the others who did not get the benefit of illegal orders should be extended similar benefits. Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be extended to legalise the illegal orders though others had wrongly got the benefit of such order. In this view we find support from Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 706. So neither petitioner is entitled to relief. We are further of the view that where sub-section (4) of Section 13 applies to any vacancy, nomination is to be made by the Director of Education from amongst the candidates, whose name have not already been intimated to the management of any college and not from amongst those whose names have already been intimated to the management of any college having due regard to the preference indicated by them. The reason is that the appointment process come to a close after the selection process contemplated in the Act has been gone through and appointment letter has been issued by the concerned college pursuance to the recommendation of the director of Education or where after the intimation has been sent by the Director under Section 13 (3) the candidate frustrates the issue of appointment letter by saying that it is not possible for him to join the college. Any other view would cause the whole scheme unworkable throwing the cause of higher education in disarray. If a candidate who having been selected and appointed is to be allowed not to join the post to which he was appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Act to permit him to wait for a vacancy in the college of his choice to arise, that would amount to total disregard to the interest of the college and the students and the cause of higher education to serve only personal interest of an individual.” 28. In Chaman Singh v. State of U.P., 2010(8) ADJ 659 (DB) : 2010(5) ESC 3583 (All)(DB) this Court held as follows : “On the aforesaid facts, we do not find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Digamber Jain P.G. College is not a College defined under the Act, and does not have a sanctioned post of Principal in the pay scale of Rs. 16,400-22,400/- for which the petitioner was selected. After the petitioner was selected, placed and issued appointment letter by Digamber Jain P.G. College Bulandshahr, he did not have any right to claim placement in any other college, including Gocher Mahavidyalaya, Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur, where he was earlier teaching. The unwillingness of Shri Babu Lal Kushwaha to work as Principal of Gocher Mahavidyalaya, Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur, subsequently and thereafter placement of Dr. Chandra Shekhar-respondent No. 4 as its Principal, does not give petitioner a right to change his placement. He does not have any right to claim adjustment or fresh placement after he was placed as Principal, Digamber Jain P.G. College Bulandshahr, and was issued appointment letter. Dr. Babu Lal Kushwaha and Dr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, both selected and placed in their respective Colleges, had mutually agreed on interchange, for which the Director of Education (Higher Education) U.P., had no objection, vide para-29 of the counter affidavit of Dr. Harsh Vardhan, Joint Director in the Directorate of Higher Education, U.P.” 29. In the case of C.O.M. Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth v. State of U.P., 2006(10) ADJ 508 (DB), view has been taken that once Dr. Pandey has refused to accept the offer of appointment in the college at Bulandshahr, there was no reason to offer appointment to her. 30. This Court in the case of Dr. Jagdish Singh v. State of U.P., 2012(3) ADJ 1 (DB) has taken into account both the judgments quoted above and in facts of the case where Respondent No.5 higher in merit was placed at D.A.V. (P.G.) College with his revised first preference and the petitioner placed much below him, in the selection was placed at S.B. (P.G.) College, both of them were issued appointment letters. Dr. Jagdish Singh joined on 7.2.2009. Dr. Gulab Singh, respondent No. 5 did not join and sought time for joining that was extended from time to time. Dr. Dr. Jagdish Singh joined on 7.2.2009. Dr. Gulab Singh, respondent No. 5 did not join and sought time for joining that was extended from time to time. Dr. Jagdish Singh resigned on 30.4.2010 and was taken back in the college, whereas placement of Dr. Gulab Singh was cancelled on 8.12.2010. In this background, opinion has been formed that both Dr. Jagdish Singh as well as Dr. Gulab Singh lost their rights to be appointed as Permanent Principal in the college pursuant to their placements and issuance of appointment letters. 31. Mere making of recommendation by the Director under Section 13(3) for one particular institution would not block the claim of petitioner or any other similarly situated incumbent for asking for a institution wherein recommendation can be made in their favour based on merit. Commission under Section 13 (1) of Act has to make recommendation and send the list of candidates to the Director found most suitable, arranged based on merit. Director, thereafter, in consonance with the parameters as settled in the case of Vinai Kumar (Supra), has to intimate the name to the Management. In terms of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of Act, Management is obligated to issue appointment letter within one month from the date of receipt of intimation. Under sub-section (2) of Section 14 where the person referred to in sub-section (1) fails to join the post within the time allowed in the appointment letter or within such extended time as the Management may allow in this behalf, or where such person is otherwise not available for appointment, the Director on the request of Management intimate fresh name from the list. The Director, in all such cases wherein recommendation has been made on the parameters of Vinai Kumar (Supra) and appointment letter has been issued, the incumbent has failed to join/is not available for appointment, then the Director should suo motu by calling for the records or on the report of Management take action for cancelling the recommendation and making fresh recommendation from the list sent by the Commission under sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. The Director of Education is required to take a call on the issue of cancellation of recommendation so made and equally in case such recommendation is not being implemented and given effect to by the Management, then conduct enquiry under Section 15 of the Act and take remedial measure provided for. Director thus plays a pivotal role both in intimating the name to the Management and thereafter ensuring its compliance. In cases where Director returns finding that an incumbent, though he has been offered appointment has failed to join or is not available for appointment, the candidate cannot claim as a matter of right then he should be offered appointment in other institution. The Director of Education (Higher) is free to cancel the placement as it has been done in the case of Dr. Jagdish Singh (Supra) and thereafter make recommendation in favour of next incumbent based on merit from the list prepared under Section 13(1) of the Act. On the other hand, in case, Director of Education (Higher) finds that an incumbent entitled to be appointed as teacher, is not being appointed by Management within the time frame provided for, then Director is free to make enquiry and ensure remedial measure. Similarly, the Director of Education (Higher) on being apprised of the fact that keeping in view the merit status, he/she is entitled for placement in another situation, even the said situation can be remedied by the Director of Education (Higher) by modifying the recommendation so made on earlier occasion. Director of Education (Higher) thus exercises supervisory power in the matter of intimation of name to the Management having due regard to the parameters as determined in the case of Vinai Kumar (Supra) from the list referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 13 and also in ensuring its implementation. Director of Education (Higher) in such a situation has to exercise his discretion reasonably within the sphere that statute confers on him. Such exercise of authority, on being questioned, must stand the test of judicial scrutiny. 32. Here, Director of Higher Education, at no point of time, ever cancelled the placement of respondent No. 4 at the earlier institution and as on merit, he could be placed at S.V. College, Aligarh accordingly, his request has been accepted, in view of this, we see no reason/justification to intervene in the matter. 33. 32. Here, Director of Higher Education, at no point of time, ever cancelled the placement of respondent No. 4 at the earlier institution and as on merit, he could be placed at S.V. College, Aligarh accordingly, his request has been accepted, in view of this, we see no reason/justification to intervene in the matter. 33. In view of this, the writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.