# Adam Malik Khan and others v. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh

- **Citation:** (1999) 1 ILRA 81
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/adam-malik-khan-and-others-v-aligarh-muslim-university-aligarh-39120
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 81
was done in self defence. The court below had observed that it could
be determined only after trial. It is, therefore, not necessary to
interfere with this order of the trial court in a proceeding under
section 482, Cr.P.C. as the right decision has been taken by the trial
court in this regard, as was observed by the Supreme Court in the
case of Bakshish Singh (supra).

In view of above, the present application stands dismissed.
Application Dismissed.
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
%KDJZDQ 6LQJK 6LVRGLD
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU SHWLWLRQHU
 6UL $VKRN .KDUH
&RXQVHO IRU UHVSRQGHQWV
 6&
$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD2,I WKH VHOHFWHG SHUVRQ MRLQ
DQG IXQFWLRQ IRU FRQVLGHUDEOH SHULRG RI WLPH WKH VHOHFW OLVW VWDQGV
H[KDXVWHG +RZHYHU LI WKH SHUVRQ GRHV QRW MRLQ RU UHVLJQV RU GLHV
ZLWKLQ IHZ GD\V DIWHU MRLQLQJ LQ VXFK FLUFXPVWDQFHV WKH OLVW GLG QRW
VWDQG H[KDXVWHG
By the Court

This writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated
31.12.97 Annexure 14 to the petition and order dated 2.1.97
Annexure 15 as well as order 7.4.97 Annexure 5 to the writ petition
and for a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with
the functioning of the petitioner as officiating principal of the college
in question.

1998
------
September, 4
82 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
The dispute in this case is regarding the question as to who is
entitled to officiate as the Principal of the college till a regular
selection. It appears the U.P. Secondary Education Service
Commission prepared a panel of three names for appointment on the
post of principal of D.N. College and A.K. School, Tirwa, Kannauj
vide Annexure 3 to the petition. In this panel Mohd. Naim is at Serial
No. 1 and Chandresh Nath Singh Baghel is at serial no.2 and Ram
Chandra is at serial no.3. This select list was prepared on 3.8.96 and
accordingly Mohd. Naim was appointed as Principal on 4.8.96 and
he worked till 30.6.97 when he retired. The claim of respondent no. 8
Chandresh Nath Singh Baghel is that he should be appointed as
permanent principal since he is at serial no.2 in the select list. On the
other hand the case of the petitioner is that the select list stood
exhausted on the appointment of Mohd. Naim.

The respondents have appointed Chandresh Nath Singh
Baghel as Principal on the reasoning that he was at serial no.2 in the
select list and hence he had the right to be appointed. The question is
whether select list dated 3.8.96 stood exhausted or not after the
appointment of Mohd. Naim as Principal.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
decision of this court in Dr. Chandra Deo Pandey V. Chancellor,
Allahabad University 1989 (1) UPLBEC 727 and the decision in
Adam Malik Khan and others V. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh
and others 1997(1) E.S.C. 331 (All). On the other hand learned
counsel for respondent no. 8. relied on the decision in 1994(2)
U.P.L.B.E.C. 1320 Kishori Raman Shiksha Samiti Mathura V.
Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, Agra 1997 (2) Allahabad Law
Reports 34 Girish Dhan Dwivedi Vs. U.P.S.E.S. Commission and
Dr. Uma Kant Vs. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain & others 1992 (1) SCC 105.

I have carefully gone through these decisions and have
considered the arguments of learned counsels for the parties. In my
opinion since Mohd. Naim had joined in August 1996 and he
actually worked till 30.6.97 i.e. for about 11 months the select list
stood exhausted. The position may have been different if Mohd.
Naim had not joined, or after joining within a few days hereafter he
had resigned or had died or had abandoned his duty. If a person does
not join, or he resigned or died with in a few days after joining then
ofcourse it could be argued that the list did not stand exhausted, as
that would be a practical approach. But if he joins and functions for a
considerable period of time the select list stands exhausted.
1998
------
B.S.Sisodia
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& others
------
M.Katju, J.
1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 83

 In the decision in Kishori Raman Shiksha Samiti Mathura V.
RIGS, Agra (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for
respondents the person who was first in the panel died five days after
joining as principal. In my opinion this decision is distinguishable
because in the present case Mohd. Naim had worked for 11 months
as Principal and then he retired. In my opinion in this situation a
fresh selection had to be held by the Commission or Board (which
now stands substituted for the Commission).

In the circumstances this writ petition is allowed. The
impugned orders are quashed, and the respondents are directed not to
interfere with the petitioner's functioning as officiating principal of
the institution in question.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,
&,9,/ 6,'(
'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
'URSDO 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
1XFOHDU 3RZHU &RUSRUDWLRQ RI ,QGLD
«5HVSRQGHQWV
/WG DQRWKHU
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 6UL 0DKHVK *DXWDP
&RXQVHO IRU WKH UHVSRQGHQWV
 6&
 6UL 61 6ULYDVWDYD
 6UL 95 $JUDZDO
&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH 2&DQFHOODWLRQ RI DSSRLQWPHQW
RUGHU23HWLWLRQHU DSSRLQWHG DV VWLSHQGDU\ WUDLQHH2$SSRLQWPHQW
RUGHU FDQFHOOHG RQ WKH SHUWH[W WKH SHWLWLRQHU LV RYHU TXDOLILHG2
KHOG2XQGHU TXDOLILFDWLRQ FDQ EH D JURXQG IRU FDQFHOODWLRQ EXW
EHLQJ RYHUTXDOLILHG WKH SHWLWLRQHU EH JLYHQ ZHLJKWDJH 3DUD
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
:31R RI GHFLGHG RQ
1998
------
B.S.Sisodia
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& others
------
M.Katju, J.
1998
------
September, 1