Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 601 (ALL)

AFROZ v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-02-21

DAYA SHANKAR TRIPATHI, VIKRAM NATH

body2017
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Rohit Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Sri Dharmendra Singh, learned counsel representing respondent No. 5 and perused the material placed before us. 2. Notices were issued to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by order dated 25.5.2016, thereafter steps were taken and notices were dispatched on 31st May, 2016 fixing 20th July, 2016. Pursuant to the said notice, Sri Dharmendra Singh appeared for respondent No. 5, but no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 4, the Committee of Management. Service on respondent No. 4 is deemed sufficient in view of the office report that neither the registered packet nor the AD card have been received back and more than a month has passed since dispatch. 3. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10.9.2015 passed by the Vice Chancellor, Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur, by which he has declined to grant approval to the selection and appointment of petitioner as Lecturer in Economics in Halim Muslim P.G. College, Kanpur Nagar (Annexure 24). 4. Pursuant to an advertisement issued in May, 2013 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Economics in the college in question, the petitioner had applied. Meeting of the Selection Committee was held on 24th June, 2013, which was chaired by Dr. M.A.W. Rizvi, who was the then Secretary of the Committee of Management of the College. The name of the petitioner was recommended by the Selection Committee. The papers were forwarded to the Vice Chancellor of the University for according his approval. By the impugned order, the Vice Chancellor declined to grant approval on the ground that Sri Mohd. Javed, who was the President of the Committee of Management of the College and should have chaired the Selection Committee or could have nominated any of the Office Bearer, but neither he presided as Chairman nor he nominated any Office Bearer to Chair the Selection Committee. The proceedings of the Selection Committee held on 24th June, 2013 under the Chairmanship of Dr. M.A.W. Rizvi, the Secretary of the Committee of Management, was thus invalid. The proceedings of the Selection Committee held on 24th June, 2013 under the Chairmanship of Dr. M.A.W. Rizvi, the Secretary of the Committee of Management, was thus invalid. It is also recorded in the impugned order that the President had not nominated the Secretary to attend the Selection Committee as Chair Person. It is also noted in the order of the Vice Chancellor that complaints were given by Sri Mohd. Javed on different dates alleging that the proceedings of the Selection Committee were illegal only on the above ground that Dr. M.A.W. Rizvi was not validly appointed Chairman of the Selection Committee. 5. From the record, we find that the Committee of Management, which was elected in the year 2012, was granted approval by the Vice Chancellor on 21.8.2012, in which Sri Mohd. Javed was elected as a President and Dr. M.A.W. Rizvi was elected as a Secretary. This approval of the Vice Chancellor to the Committee of Management remained effective till 7.4.2014 when the Chancellor passed an order setting aside the approval and remanded the matter to the Vice Chancellor to pass a fresh order. The Selection Committee had met on 24th June, 2013 and at that time it had valid approval from the Vice Chancellor, which had not been put in any kind of jeopardy till then. We may also note here that according to Constitution and Byelaws of the Muslim Association, Kanpur, which is main body/society running the Institution in question it is provided in Rule 76 under the heading ‘Powers And Duties of Secretary/Manager of Institutions’ that the Secretary shall be the nominee of the Head of the Management of the Committee of Management of Halim Muslim P.G. College to be Chairman of Selection Committee for the appointment of teacher as per Section 31(4)(c)(i) and (D)(i) of the U.P. University Act, 1973. It may also be clarified here that Secretary in Rule 76 refers to the Secretary/Manager of the Committee of Management/Institution, and not of the Society i.e. Muslim Association, Kanpur. Rule 76 is reproduced below : “76. The Secretary shall be the nominee of the Head of the Management of the Committee of Management of Halim Muslim P.G. College to be Chairman of Selection Committee for the appointment of teacher as per Section 31(4)(c)(i) and (D)(i) of U.P. University Act, 1973.” 6. Rule 76 is reproduced below : “76. The Secretary shall be the nominee of the Head of the Management of the Committee of Management of Halim Muslim P.G. College to be Chairman of Selection Committee for the appointment of teacher as per Section 31(4)(c)(i) and (D)(i) of U.P. University Act, 1973.” 6. If that is provided in the Bye-laws, then apparently the President would have no say in the matter of appointment as the Chairman of the Selection Committee and the Secretary of the Committee of Management of Halim Muslim P.G. College by virtue of Rule 76 of the Constitution and Bye-laws of the Muslim Association would be the Chairman of the Selection Committee in the college in question. In the present case, it is the Secretary, Dr. M.A.W. Rizvi, who had chaired the Selection Committee and, therefore, no fault or adverse ground could be found with the constitution of the Selection Committee. It appears that before the Vice Chancellor, these provisions were not placed and in the absence of the same, the impugned order has been passed entertaining the objection of the President Sri Mohd. Javed. 7. For the above reason, the impugned order of the Vice Chancellor dated 10.9.2015 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside. Let fresh orders be issued by the Vice Chancellor. 8. The writ petition is allowed as above.