Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2515 (ALL)

KRISHNA DEO VERMA v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-11-02

IRSHAD ALI, PANKAJ MITHAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ateeq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing counsel has appeared for respondents no. 1,2,5,6 and 7. Sri Mangala Prasad Rai for the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gautam Baghel for respondent no. 8. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition so as to challenge the order dated 8/10th October 2017 issued by the District Magistrate as the Administrator of the Amar Singh College, Lakhawati affiliated to the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. 3. The aforesaid impugned order nominates respondent no. 8, the associate Professor as the officiating Principal of the aforesaid College. 4. The contention of Sri Khan learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Principal of the College had initially declared respondent no. 8 as senior to the petitioner. The said order was set aside by the Vice Chancellor on 16.2.2017 and the petitioner was held senior to him. This order has been upheld even by the Chancellor vide his order dated 3.7.2017. Therefore, petitioner is the senior most teacher working at the institution and is entitled to be appointed as officiating Principal in preference to respondent no. 8 who is admittedly junior to him. The candidature of the petitioner for officiating Principal can not be ignored for non fulfilment of requisite Academic Performance Indicator (in short API) introduced under the UGC Regulations 2010 for the reason that the implementation of the said regulations in the State of U.P. have been postponed till 31st December 2017 vide G.O. dated 28th July 2017. 5. In response to the above arguments Sri Khare submits that seniority alone is not sufficient for appointing officiating Principal and that the senior most person must also possess the requisite qualifications for the post of the Principal. One of the essential qualification is possession of requisite API score. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in Professor Madan Mohan Rajput Vs. State of U.P. and others 2016 (5) ADJ 220 (DB) had considered the UGC Regulations 2010 and had observed that the State of U.P. on 31st December 2010 has proceeded to adopt the said regulations and had issued necessary directions in this regard in exercise of powers under Section 50(6) of the U.P. State Universities Act with further direction that all Universities should make changes in their Statutes accordingly within 15 days. 7. 7. In view of the aforesaid Government Order dated 31st December 2010 UGC Regulations 2010 have been applied in the State of U.P. w.e.f. 31st December 2010 and necessary changes were incorporated in the First Statutes of the University. 8. The Government Order dated 28th July 2017 only provides that for the purposes of promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme for the calculation of the past services the UGC Regulations 2010 would be implemented w.e.f. 31st December 2017. This Government Order is in addition to the Government Order dated 31.12.2010 and does not supersede or override the same. 9. In this view of the matter, the Government Order dated 28th July 2017 applies the UGC Regulations 2010 to the State of U.P. in so far as the matter of promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme is concerned w.e.f. 31.12.2017 and all other provisions of the UGC Regulations 2010 continue to apply as per the G.O. dated 31.12.2010. 10. Admittedly, the UGC Regulations 2010 as incorporated in the First Statutes of the University provides that for the post of Principal of the College, the candidate must possess the requisite qualifications and the API score as provided in Appendix 3. 11. The petitioner no where in the petition pleads that he possesses the requisite API score or that respondent no. 8 does not possess the same. Therefore, petitioner is certainly not qualified to hold the post of officiating Principal/Principal. 12. Lastly, Sri A.A. Khan has submitted that the aforesaid qualification and the possession of API score is for the regular post of the Principal and would not apply to that of the officiating Principal for which the payment has to be made solely on the basis of seniority. 13. The submission is devoid of any substance for the reason that there can not be two different criteria or qualifications for the post of the Principal; one for regular appointment; and the other for officiating. 14. A person not holding the requisite qualifications as laid down in the Statutes/Regulations can not be permitted to function on the post of the Principal in any manner. 15. Accordingly, we find no merit in this petition and it is dismissed.