Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 610 (ALL)

Vipul Kumar Shukla v. State of U. P.

2016-02-19

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. Vipul Kumar Shukla is before this Court with a request to quash the impugned order dated 8.10.2015 passed by Vice Chancellor, Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi-respondent no.2. He has further prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to initiate an enquiry regarding manipulation of records of the selection proceedings and direct the respondent nos. 2 and 4 to appoint him on the post of Assistant Lecturer (Literature). 2. Brief background of the case, as is reflected from the record is that Shastratha Mahavidyalaya Dashasvamedh, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as institution) is affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi (in short, University) and the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (in short the Act 1973) are fully applicable to the institution in question. An advertisement was published in Hindi newspaper "Aaj" on 28.11.2014 for appointment on one post of Lecturer (Literature); two posts of Assistant Lecturer (Literature) and two posts of Assistant Lecturer/Teacher (English and Ved) in the institution in question. The petitioner possessed requisite qualification and applied for appointment on the post of Assistant Lecturer (Literature). Thereafter, the petitioner had been called for the interview, which had taken place on 5.5.2015. 3. Ms. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that on the basis of his performance in the interview, the petitioner was selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee for appointment on the post of Assistant Lecturer (Literature). After the selection the petitioner was also informed by the authority concerned that he was selected for the post of Assistant Lecturer (Lit.). Later on, the petitioner was informed that one expert namely Dr. Chhote Lal Tripathi had not accorded his consent and consequently his candidature was rejected. Thereafter, the Committee of Management had sent a letter for re-advertisement the post in question. She also makes submission that the refusal (Asahmat), which was allegedly endorsed with the signatures of an expert of the Selection Committee, was in fact not written by the expert Dr. Chhote Lal Tripathi but by way of manipulation and fraud this word had been put later on. She also makes submission that the refusal (Asahmat), which was allegedly endorsed with the signatures of an expert of the Selection Committee, was in fact not written by the expert Dr. Chhote Lal Tripathi but by way of manipulation and fraud this word had been put later on. The said endorsement is written in a different hand writing and on a different format and just to oust the candidature of the petitioner and to accommodate one Pawan Kumar Shukla, who happens to be the son of the Principal of the institution, the aforesaid maneuvering has been done. 4. Ms. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the manipulation was made in the proceedings of the Selection Committee, then it was incumbent upon the Vice Chancellor of the University for initiating an enquiry into the matter and straightaway on the basis of recommendations made by the management, the post in question could not be re-advertised. 5. Shri Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the University, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the writ petition precisely on the ground that highly disputed facts have been raised and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy under the Act 1973. 6. We have proceeded to examine the record in question. A bare perusal of the recommendation dated 5.5.2015 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) this much is reflected that in the Selection Committee, six persons, namely Dr. Sarnath Pandey, (nominated by management) as Chairman of the Selection Committee; Dr. Chhote Lal Tripathi (nominated expert by Vice Chancellor) as Member; Dr. Gope Bandhu Mishra (nominated expert by Vice Chancellor) as Member; Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh (Honorary); Dr. Ram Bahore 'Madhup' (representative of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) as Member and Dinesh Gupt (representative of OBC) as Member, had participated in the meeting of the Selection Committee. They had proceeded to make a mention that 6 candidates had appeared at the time of interview and after the said interview the Selection Committee had taken a decision that the petitioner, namely Vipul Kumar Shukla, is being recommended for appointment on the post of Assistant Lecturer (Literature). They had proceeded to make a mention that 6 candidates had appeared at the time of interview and after the said interview the Selection Committee had taken a decision that the petitioner, namely Vipul Kumar Shukla, is being recommended for appointment on the post of Assistant Lecturer (Literature). The minutes of the Selection Committee is reproduced hereinafter: - vkt fnukad 5-5-2015 dks Jh 'kkL=kFkZ egkfo|ky; Mh&17@ 58, n'kk'oes/k] okjk.klh ds fjDr izoDrk @ lgk;d izoDrk ¼ fo"k; lkfgR;½ in gsrq foKkiu la[;k------ fnukad 28@11@2015 p;u lfefr dh cSBd egkfo|ky; ds izkpk;Z d{k esa vijkgu 2%30 cts izkjEHk gqbZA p;u lfefr dh cSBd esa fuEufyf[kr lnL;@ fo'ks"kK mifLFkr gq,A 1- Mk0 lkjukFk ik.Ms; izcU/krU= }kjk fufnZ"V v/;{k 2- Mk0 NksVs yky f=ikBh dqyifr }kjk ukfer fo'ks"kK lnL; 3- Mk0 xksi cU/kq feJ dqyifr }kjk ukfer fo'ks"kK lnL; 4- Jh jktsUnz izlkn flag insu 5- Mk0 jke cgksj e/kqi vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa tutifr lnL; 6- fnus'k eqIr ,y0,y0ch fiNMk oxZ lnL;A p;u lfefr ds lnL;x.k ?kksf"kr djrs gS fd /kkjk &20 dh ifjHkk"kk ds vuqlkj dksbZ Hkh vH;FkhZ muls lEcaf/kr ugh gSA p;u lfefr ds le{k dqy 6 vH;FkhZ mifLFkr gksdj mDr in ds lk{kkRdkj esa lfEefyr gq,A lk{kkRdkj ds vuUrj lk{kkRdkj] ;ksX;rk vkfn ij lE;d fopkjksaijkUr p;u lfefr loZ lEefr ls lgk;d izoDrk lkfgR; in ij Jh foiqy dqekj 'kqDr dks fu;qDr djus dh laLrqfr iznku djrh gSA vlger vlger g0 g0 g0 g0 g0 lkjukFk ik.Ms; NksVs yky f=ikB xksi cU/kq feJ jke cgksj e/kqi nus'k eqIr v/;{k fo'ks"kK fo'ks"kK lnL; lnL; 7. Once this is the factual situation that once the Selection Committee had, on the basis of interviews, unanimously taken a decision that the petitioner was suitable candidate for appointment as Assistant Lecturer (Literature) and the said proceedings had been signed by all the persons, then definitely the objection raised by Ms. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that once the Selection Committee had unanimously taken a decision for the appointment of petitioner and even the name has been mentioned, then there is no occasion or reason in making any endorsement as 'Asahmat'. 8. A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. 8. A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. The vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate. 9. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612 , held that appearance of the name of a candidate in the select list does not give him a right of appointment. Mere inclusion of candidate's name in the select list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled. The candidate concerned cannot claim that he has been given a hostile discrimination. (see also Asha Kaul & Anr. Vs. State of J & K & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 573 ; Union of India Vs. S.S.Uppal, AIR 1996 SC 2340 ; Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1997 SC 2280 ; Simanchal Panda Vs. State of Orissa & Ors., (2002) 2 SCC 669 ; Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Malkiat Singh (2005) 9 SCC 22 ; Union of India & Ors. Vs. Kali Dass Batish & Anr. AIR 2006 SC 789 ; Divisional Forests Officers & Ors. Vs. M. Ramalinga Reddy AIR 2007 SC 2226 ; Subha B. Nair & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 210 ; Mukul Saikia & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 386 ; and S.S. Balu & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 479 ). 10. We are of the considered opinion that since highly disputed facts have been raised before this Court, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 11. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Chancellor of the University under Section 68 of the Act 1973.