# Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 722
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-19
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 45146 of 2015
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-kumar-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53754
- **Pages:** 26

## Headnote

order of cancellation
of
appointment of probationers passed without
issuing notice and affording opportunity of
hearing.
(2) Competence of State Government to
terminate service of petitioner, appointed as
Class-III and IV employees of an affiliated
college.
(3) Entitlement of the petitioners to an
automatic
reinstatement
in
service
after
quashing of the impugned orders by the High
Court after giving liberty to the appropriate
authorities to hear and pass fresh orders in each
matter of individual-petitioner.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Termination of service -
Principle of natural justice - Applicability
- Appointment was on probation basis as
Class-III and IV employees - Allegation
leveled was that the petitioner possessed
no CCC certificate issued by DOEACC
society - No show cause notice and
opportunity of hearing was given - Effect :
Held : A probationer may be discharged from
service without assignment of reason is a
proposition of the law that hardly brooks doubt
- At the same time, it is equally well settled on
principle that if a probationer's services are
dispensed with on the basis of allegations
relating to his conduct, which we think, would
extend to those affecting the selection process,
he is entitled to a fare and minimum of
opportunity to show cause to the Appointing
Authority before his services are dispensed with.
[Para 35]

(B)
Service
law
-
Cancellation
of
appointment
-
Impugned
order
was
passed by the State Government and
consequential order was passed by the
Director - The State Government is
neither
appointing
authority
nor
approving authority - Competence of
State Government felt into consideration :
Held : There is no authority of any kind vested
in the State Government, to direct a cancellation
of appointment of Class-III and IV employees of
a private institution of higher learning, the State
funding notwithstanding - No doubt, the scope
of inspection of affiliated and associated
colleges under Section 40 extends to clothing
the State Government with the power to cause
an inquiry in regard to matters connected with
the administration and finances, but sub-Section
(1) of Section 40 read with sub-Section (4)
cannot clearly extend to directing a cancellation
of the appointments of Class-III and IV
employees of affiliated colleges - It affords no
source of authority to the State Government to
terminate the services of individual Class-III and
IV employees of an affiliated college or cancel
his/ her appointment. [Paras 39 and 40]

(C) Service law - Termination of service -
Appointment in two separate institutions
was held after adopting two separate
process - However, the appointment of all
the thirteen candidates were cancelled by
one stroke of pen by passing a common
order dated 19.06.2015 - No individual
consideration
was
made
-
Validity
challenged :
Held : The principle of segregating the tainted
selections from the untainted ones, is a well
recogn

## Text

_Characters 0–39,833 of 88,335. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39833 for what follows._

722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

30. The petitioner has failed to establish the
authenticity of his academic documents, and
discrepancies in his name across vital records
reveal a prima facie case of fraud. The petitioner's
inability to produce genuine documents, coupled
with the misuse of documents belonging to some
other, i.e. Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, confirms that
the appointment was obtained through fraudulent
means.

31. It is clear from the records that
documents of complainant (who got selected
somewhere else) have been used by petitioner to
obtain appointment in place of complainant using
his name.

32. In the present case, the verification report
categorically
records
that
the
documents
submitted by the petitioner were forged. The
petitioner was issued a show-cause notice and was
called upon to produce the original certificates, but
he failed to do so. In these circumstances, the
respondents were justified in concluding that the
appointment had been procured by fraudulent
means.

33. The contention that a full departmental
enquiry ought to have been held is without merit.
Once it is established that the very entry into
service was vitiated by fraud, there is no
"termination" in the strict sense, but only a
declaration that no valid appointment ever existed.
The requirement of an elaborate enquiry, as
mandated for proven misconduct of a regular
employee, has no application to such cases.

34. In this view of the matter, when the
petitioner had produced forged documents for
getting appointment and nothing has been pointed
out to controvert the findings recorded in the
impugned order, the petitioner is not entitled to
grant any relief as prayed.

35. Thus, where a person secures
appointment on the basis of a forged marksheet or
certificate or appointment letter and on that basis
he or she has been inducted in Government
service then he/she becomes beneficiary of illegal
and fraudulent appointment. Such an appointment
is illegal and void ab initio. Therefore, holding
disciplinary proceedings envisaged by Article 311
of the Constitution of India or under any
disciplinary rules including the Uttar Pradesh
Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 or the Uttar
Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules 1999, shall not arise.

36. The forgery committed by the petitioner,
for obtaining public employment on the basis of
forged educational documents is the basic
eligibility condition for appointment on the post of
Assistant Teacher. Therefore, it vitiates the
process of his appointment. Thus, the appointment
of the petitioner is void ab initio and he cannot be
said to be a government servant. Therefore, his
appointment has been lawfully cancelled by the
impugned order.

37. For all the reasons aforestated, I do not
find any error of law in the impugned order dated
06.10.2022, which has been passed by the
respondent no.2. Therefore, the writ petition is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 722
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 45146 of 2015
&
Connected With Other Matters

Ashok Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
8 All. Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
723
Anurag Asthana, Ashok Khare, Sanjeev
Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
B.D. Pandey, C.S.C., Rohit Pandey

Issue for Consideration
(1) Legality
of
order of cancellation
of
appointment of probationers passed without
issuing notice and affording opportunity of
hearing.
(2) Competence of State Government to
terminate service of petitioner, appointed as
Class-III and IV employees of an affiliated
college.
(3) Entitlement of the petitioners to an
automatic
reinstatement
in
service
after
quashing of the impugned orders by the High
Court after giving liberty to the appropriate
authorities to hear and pass fresh orders in each
matter of individual-petitioner.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Termination of service -
Principle of natural justice - Applicability
- Appointment was on probation basis as
Class-III and IV employees - Allegation
leveled was that the petitioner possessed
no CCC certificate issued by DOEACC
society - No show cause notice and
opportunity of hearing was given - Effect :
Held : A probationer may be discharged from
service without assignment of reason is a
proposition of the law that hardly brooks doubt
- At the same time, it is equally well settled on
principle that if a probationer's services are
dispensed with on the basis of allegations
relating to his conduct, which we think, would
extend to those affecting the selection process,
he is entitled to a fare and minimum of
opportunity to show cause to the Appointing
Authority before his services are dispensed with.
[Para 35]

(B)
Service
law
-
Cancellation
of
appointment
-
Impugned
order
was
passed by the State Government and
consequential order was passed by the
Director - The State Government is
neither
appointing
authority
nor
approving authority - Competence of
State Government felt into consideration :
Held : There is no authority of any kind vested
in the State Government, to direct a cancellation
of appointment of Class-III and IV employees of
a private institution of higher learning, the State
funding notwithstanding - No doubt, the scope
of inspection of affiliated and associated
colleges under Section 40 extends to clothing
the State Government with the power to cause
an inquiry in regard to matters connected with
the administration and finances, but sub-Section
(1) of Section 40 read with sub-Section (4)
cannot clearly extend to directing a cancellation
of the appointments of Class-III and IV
employees of affiliated colleges - It affords no
source of authority to the State Government to
terminate the services of individual Class-III and
IV employees of an affiliated college or cancel
his/ her appointment. [Paras 39 and 40]

(C) Service law - Termination of service -
Appointment in two separate institutions
was held after adopting two separate
process - However, the appointment of all
the thirteen candidates were cancelled by
one stroke of pen by passing a common
order dated 19.06.2015 - No individual
consideration
was
made
-
Validity
challenged :
Held : The principle of segregating the tainted
selections from the untainted ones, is a well
recognized principle, where the purity or the
sanctity of the selection process in public
employment is doubted. The principle further
exposits that individual cases have to be
scrutinized unless the taint is so widespread as
to soil the entire selection process - The two
processes would be entirely different. Therefore,
this possibly cannot be a case where all the
selections would be affected by the same taint
so drastically as to call for a wholesome
countermanding
of
all
selections
and
appointments by an omnibus order. [Paras 42
and 43]

(D) Service law - Reinstatement in service
- Petitioners, who were probationers,
have been out of service since the year
2015, after that short probation of some
months that they were terminated - The
impugned order was being quashed by
giving liberty to appropriate authorities to
hear the individual petitioners and make
724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fresh orders - Reinstatement in service
was claimed - Permissibility :
Held : Notwithstanding the orders impugned
being fit to be quashed with liberty to the
competent Appointing Authority to proceed
afresh against the petitioners, they would not be
entitled to reinstatement in service unless upon
inquiry, as directed hereinafter, the respondents
conclude in the petitioners' favour, or they elect
in one or more case not to proceed afresh at all.
[Para 48] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Nisha Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and
others, (2014) 16 SCC 392; Indian Institute of
Information Technology, Allahabad and another
v. Dr. Anurika Vaish and others, (2017) 5 SCC
660; Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and others v. Ajit
Singh Patel and others, (2019) 12 SCC 285;
State of Orissa and another v. Ram Narayan
Das, AIR 1961 SC 177; Unit Trust of India v. T.
Bijaya Kumar Patra, 1992 SCC OnLine SC 586;
Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi
PGI of Medical Sciences and another, (2002) 1
SCC 520; Progressive Education Society and
another v. Rajendra and another, (2008) 3 SCC
310; State Bank of India and others v. Palak
Modi and another, (2013) 3 SCC 607; Dipti
Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose
National Centre for Basic Sciences, (1999) 3 SCC
60; Inspector of Panchayats and District
Collector, Salem v. S. Arichandran and others,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1282; State of Uttar
Pradesh and others v. Rajit Singh, (2022) 15
SCC 254; Allahabad Bank and others v. Krishan
Pal Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 227 - referred to.

List of Acts
U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 - Ss. 40 and
58; U. P. State Control Over Public Corporations
Act, 1975.

List of Keywords
Privately
managed
postgraduate
colleges;
Grant-in-aid
from
the
State
Government;
Selection; Appointment; Class III employee;
Class IV employee; Probationers; Termination of
service;
Competent
authority;
Appointing
authority;
Approving
authority;
Preliminary
enquiry; Ex parte; ulta vires; Beyond the
authority; University; Omnibus order; Blanket
order; Jurisdiction Stereotyped and cyclostyled
order; Show cause; Opportunity of hearing;
Principle of natural justice; Discharge of service;
Dispensation of service; Stigmatic; Innocuous;
Fact finding inquiry; Stigma; Sticky; Nepotism;
Tainted selection; Prior permission; ad idem;
Authorized Controller; Segregation; Scrutiny;
Principle of segregating the tainted selections
from the untainted ones; Sanctity of selection;
Individual cases; automatic reinstatement in
service.

Case Arising From
Order dated 19.06.2015 passed by the State
Government to terminate the services of all the
thirteen petitioners.

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This judgment will decide Writ-A
No.45146 of 2015 and connected Writ-A
Nos.41708 of 2015, 42609 of 2015, 45142
of 2015, 1441 of 2024, 42482 of 2015,
42483 of 2015, 42843 of 2015, 42844 of
2015 and 46719 of 2015.

2. The writ petitioners in all the writ
petitions were Class-III and IV employees of
two privately managed postgraduate colleges
that are in receipt of grant-in-aid from the
State Government. Both the postgraduate
colleges, where the writ petitioners had been
serving, at the time when they were selected
and appointed, were under the control and
management of an Authorized Controller
appointed by the State Government. In all
these cases, the writ petitioners complain of
illegal termination of their services under
orders of the State Government that are
impugned in each of the writ petitions,
besides those giving effect to those orders
passed by the Director of Education (Higher
Education) and the Authorized Controller of
the Institution or the Principal, depending
upon the post held by the petitioner
concerned in a particular writ petition.

3. In one of the writ petitions, to wit,
Writ-A 1441 of 2024, all that is under
8 All. Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
725
challenge is an order of the Director of
Higher Education, addressed to the Higher
Education
Officer,
Allahabad,
in
compliance with the Government Order
dated 19.06.2015, directing termination of
services of employees at the A.P.N. Post
Graduate College, Basti, selected and
appointed in violation of rules. The writ
petitioner in this case has not challenged
the Government Order dated 19.06.2015
passed by the State Government or the
consequential
order
issued
by
the
competent Appointing Authority of the
Institution, terminating his services. He
pleads a case of oral termination of services
pursuant to the order dated 20.06.2015
passed by the Director of Education
(Higher Education).

4. Out of the ten writ petitions, that
have been heard together and proposed to
be decided by this judgment, Writ-A
Nos.45146 of 2015, 41708 of 2015, 42609
of 2015, 45142 of 2015, 1441 of 2024 have
been filed by employees of the A.P.N. Post
Graduate College, Basti, whereas Writ-A
Nos.42482 of 2015, 42483 of 2015, 42843
of 2015, 42844 of 2015 and 46719 of 2015
have been filed by employees of the Shiv
Harsh Kisan Post Graduate College, Basti.
The A.P.N. Post Graduate College, Basti,
wherever
individually
referred,
shall
hereinafter be called 'the A.P.N.', whereas
the Shiv Harsh Kisan Post Graduate
College, Basti, in all individual references
to the said Institution, shall be called 'the
Shiv Harsh'; in case of a collective
reference to both the institutions, these
shall be called 'the Institutions'.

5. Of all the ten writ petitions, above
detailed, Writ-A No.45146 of 2015 has
been
heard
as
the
leading
case.
Nevertheless, a reference to the facts of
each of the individual writ petitions,
wherever necessary and to the extent
required, shall be made in the course of this
judgment.

6. In order to facilitate a better
understanding of the facts involved in the
leading case and the connected matters, it
would be apposite to set forth relevant
information regarding the facts in each case
in tabular form, shown below:

S
l.
N
o.
Name
of
Emplo
yee
Class
and
Design
ation
Instit
ution
Order
impu
gned
date
Passe
d by
Wr
itA
No.
1.
Ashok
Kumar
Yadav
ClassIII,
Stenog
rapher
A.P.
N.
19.06
.2015
Speci
al
Secret
ary,
Govt.
of
U.P.,
Luckn
ow
451
46/
201
5
20.06
.2015
Direct
or
(High
er
Educa
tion),
Allah
abad
22.06
.2015
Autho
rized
Contr
oller
2.
1.
Ajeet
Pratap
Pal

2.
Radhe
y
Shyam
ClassIV,
Book
Lifter

ClassIV,
Genera
l Peon
A.P.
N.
19.06
.2015
Speci
al
Secret
ary,
Govt.
of
U.P.,
Luckn
ow
426
09/
201
5
20.06
.2015
Direct
or
(High
er
Educa
tion),
Allah
abad
22.06
.2015
Autho
rized
Contr
oller
726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
24.06
.2015
Princi
pal
3.
Raghv
endra
Chaur
asia
ClassIV,
Genera
l Peon
A.P.
N.
19.06
.2015
Speci
al
Secret
ary,
Govt.
of
U.P.,
Luckn
ow
417
08/
201
5
20.06
.2015
Direct
or
(High
er
Educa
tion),
Allah
abad
24.06
.2015
Princi
pal
4.
Ram
Lakha
n
Yadav
ClassIII,
Routin
e Clerk
A.P.
N.
19.06
.2015
Speci
al
Secret
ary,
Govt.
of
U.P.,
Luckn
ow
451
42/
201
5
20.06
.2015
Direct
or
(High
er
Educa
tion),
Allah
abad
22.06
.2015
Autho
rized
Contr
oller
5.
Arvind
Yadav
ClassIII,
Labora
tory
Assista
nt
Geogr
aphy
A.P.
N.
20.06
.2015
Direct
or
(High
er
Educa
tion),
Allah
abad
144
1/
202
4
---
A
case
of
oral
termi
nation
by the
Institu
tion
6.
1.
Harish
Chand
ClassIII,
Routin
Shiv
Hars
h
19.06
.2015
Speci
al
Secret
467
19/
201
ra
Bharti

2.
Sailen
dra Pt.
Singh
e Clerk

ClassIII,
Librar
y
Clerk
ary,
Govt.
of
U.P.,
Luckn
ow
5
20.06
.2015
Direct
or
(High
er
Educa
tion),
Allah
abad
08.07
.2015
Autho
rized
Contr
oller
7.
Rakes
h
Kumar
Pande
y
ClassIII,
Labora
tory
Assista
nt,
Botany
Shiv
Hars
h
19.06
.2015
Speci
al
Secret
ary,
Govt.
of
U.P.,
Luckn
ow
424
82/
201
5
20.06
.2015
Direct
or
(High
er
Educa
tion),
Allah
abad
08.07
.2015
Autho
rized
Contr
oller
8.
Radhi
ka
Chaka
ravarti
ClassIII,
Labora
tory
Assista
nt,
Geogr
aphy
Shiv
Hars
h
19.06
.2015
Speci
al
Secret
ary,
Govt.
of
U.P.,
Luckn
ow
428
44/
201
5
20.06
.2015
Direct
or
(High
er
Educa
tion),
Allah
abad
08.07
.2015
Autho
rized
Contr
oller
9.
Chand
ra
ClassIII,
Shiv
Hars
19.06
.2015
Speci
al
428
43/
8 All. Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
727
Shekh
ar
Yadav
Routin
e Clerk
h
Secret
ary,
Govt.
of
U.P.,
Luckn
ow
201
5
20.06
.2015
Direct
or
(High
er
Educa
tion),
Allah
abad
08.07
.2015
Autho
rized
Contr
oller
1
0.
Jay
Nath
Yadav
ClassIII,
Labora
tory
Assista
nt,
Physic
s
Shiv
Hars
h
19.06
.2015
Speci
al
Secret
ary,
Govt.
of
U.P.,
Luckn
ow
424
83/
201
5
20.06
.2015
Direct
or
(High
er
Educa
tion),
Allah
abad
08.07
.2015
Autho
rized
Contr
oller

7. Since Writ-A No.45146 of 2015 has
been heard as the leading case, facts apart
from those already set forth hereinabove,
would be noticed from that petition. Ashok
Kumar Yadav, the writ petitioner in the
leading case, applied in response to an
advertisement dated 25.08.2014 published
by the Authorized Controller of the A.P.N.
On 04.03.2015, the petitioner was called
for interview and asked to undergo a typing
test during the course of interview. The
petitioner was selected for appointment to
the post of a Stenographer in the A.P.N.
The Regional Higher Education Officer,
Gorakpur vide memo dated 26.03.2015,
addressed to the Principal/ the Authorized
Controller of the A.P.N., approved the
petitioner's selection for the post of
Stenographer, regarding which, papers
were submitted to him. On the following
day, i.e. 27.03.2015, a letter of appointment
was issued by the Authorized Controller of
the A.P.N., granting appointment to the
petitioner against the vacant post of
Stenographer in the pay scale of Rs.520020200/- with a grade pay of Rs.2800/-.
These documents are on record of the writ
petition.

8. It is the petitioner's case that he
joined the institution and discharged his
duties with utmost devotion and sincerity.
He was surprised to receive an office order
dated 22.06.2015 issued by the Authorized
Controller of the A.P.N., cancelling his
appointment. The order dated 22.06.2015,
impugned in the petition, passed by the
Authorized Controller, does not carry a
decision by the said Authority, according to
the
petitioner,
but
merely
echoes
compliance with an order dated 20.06.2015
issued by the Director (Higher Education),
U.P., Allahabad, which, in turn, gives
effect
to
a
decision
of
the
State
Government in the Department of Higher
Education dated 19.06.2015, directing
termination of services of the petitioner,
besides others made in the establishment of
the A.P.N. It is the petitioner's case that he
did not know initially what the orders dated
19.06.2015 and 20.06.2015 were about. He
later on secured copies of these orders and
came to know that the process of
appointment for the petitioner was held
invalid by the State Government under
some kind of an inquiry undertaken at the
Government's behest. The petitioner says
that he has been appointed validly in
accordance with rules, after facing a
selection committee constituted for the
728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
purpose and undergoing the requisite
typing
test.
He
holds
the
essential
qualifications prescribed. The Government
Order dated 19.06.2015, which is the
source of it all, relies on some inquiry
report, where the inquiry was undertaken
behind the petitioner's back. The order
passed by the Government is one which
was made also without hearing the
petitioner. The orders of the Director
(Higher Education) dated 19.06.2015 and
the order by the Authorized Controller
impugned, terminating the petitioner's
service, are nothing more than orders
mechanically
implementing
the
State
Government's order dated 19.06.2015.

9. It is pleaded in paragraph No.14 of
the writ petition that the inquiry, that was
undertaken
under
orders
of
the
Government, was based upon a complaint
by Hon'ble Mr. Sanjay Pratap Jaiswal,
Member of the Legislative Assembly. This
complaint was addressed by the Hon'ble
Member on 18.03.2015. The Government
constituted a two-member committee and a
fact finding or a preliminary inquiry was
undertaken by this committee, which found
the process of selection flawed. The Special
Secretary
on
behalf
of
the
State
Government made the substantial order
impugned dated 19.06.2015. The petitioner
has pleaded that the preliminary inquiry
was held ex parte without hearing him. The
Principal of the Institution was blamed for
holding flawed selections and suspended
from service pending inquiry.

10. The petitioner further says that the
order dated 19.06.2015 passed by the State
Government does not speak of the
allegations or the infirmities found by the
inquiry committee in the selection process.
It mentions irregularities committed by the
then Principal Dr. R.K. Pathak, where,
there
is
an
allegation
of
improper
evaluation in the typing test, so far as the
petitioner is concerned. There is also some
case about erroneous award of quality point
marks,
because
qualifications
beyond
intermediate were taken into account,
which, under the rules, were not relevant.
Be that as it may, the case of the petitioner
is that neither was he heard by the inquiry
committee that undertook a fact finding or
the preliminary inquiry nor by the State
Government, before they passed the order
impugned dated 19.06.2015. He, thus,
complains of violation of the principles of
natural justice, in his pleadings set forth in
the writ petition.

11. There are two counter affidavits
filed in the leading case - one on behalf of
respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, and the other,
on
behalf
of
respondent
No.3.
Substantially, the first counter affidavit
mentioned is on behalf of the State
Government and its officers, whereas the
other is on behalf of the Pt. Deen Dayal
Upadhyay
Gorakhpur
University,
Gorakhpur. There is a rejoinder affidavit
put in by the petitioner, answering the State
Government's counter. Substantially, the
issue is between the State Government and
their officers on one hand, and the
petitioner, on the other.

12. Upon a perusal of the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the State
Government and their officers, what we
notice is that it is an affidavit filed by Dr.
Vinita
Yadav,
Assistant
Director,
Directorate of Higher Education, U.P.,
Allahabad. In our opinion, she is competent
to represent respondent Nos.2 and 4, but
not the State Government. After all, the
State Government can be represented by a
Secretary of theirs and not by an officer,
working in the Directorate of Higher
8 All. Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
729
Education. In substance, therefore, the
counter affidavit, on behalf of the State
Government and their officers, is not really
one on behalf of the State Government,
who have passed the substantial order
impugned. We may remark at this stage
that in all the connected matters, the date of
advertisement and the post advertised, to
which the various petitioners have been
selected,
may
be
different
and
the
institution, where the concerned petitioner
appointed, may either be the A.P.N. or the
Shiv Harsh, but the same issues, as those
involved in the present petition, arise for
consideration. The substantial order, that
has been passed by the State Government,
directing a termination of service of all the
petitioners, is the same and founded on a
common inquiry report - a fact finding or
preliminary inquiry, done under orders of
the State Government. It is for these
reasons that the same pleas have been
raised in all the petitions and common
questions of fact and law arise.

13. It must also be remarked that in all
the writ petitions, the counter affidavit, that
has been filed on behalf of the State
Government and its officers, is an affidavit
not
sworn
by
a
Secretary
to
the
Government and, therefore, not really a
competent affidavit on behalf of the
Government. The affidavit can be read as
one on behalf of the officers of the
Directorate of Higher Education and the
Regional Director of Higher Education,
Gorakhpur, but not the Government, as
already remarked.

14. There is one writ petition, being
Writ-A No.45142 of 2015, where there is
no counter affidavit filed, either on behalf
of the State Government or their officers
or the University, despite time being
granted.

15. In the counter affidavit filed in the
leading case, it is averred in paragraph
No.4 that an inquiry was conducted on the
basis of complaints made by the College
regarding recruitment of employees on
various posts. It is also asserted that the
inquiry, after being done, led to an inquiry
report, that was submitted vide letter dated
26.04.2015, where opportunity was given
to the petitioner to have his say. It is also
asserted that after due consideration of the
petitioner's
reply,
it
was
found
unsatisfactory. His selection and the
appointment was, therefore, held invalid. It
is also said in the counter affidavit that the
petitioner is a brother of full blood to one
Ravindra Nath Yadav, a Clerk posted in the
office of the Regional Higher Education
Officer, Gorakhpur, who was handling
matters relating to District Basti. One
Professor Sadan Ram happened to be the
Regional Higher Education Officer at the
material point of time. It is claimed that in
this way, the petitioner's brother influenced
the selection process and members of the
selection committee to unfairly select him.
The advertisement is castigated as one,
which did not conform to the prescribed
scheme of qualifications. The candidates,
who had knowledge of typing, were
ignored and the petitioner, with no such
skill
or
knowledge,
selected.
The
petitioner's appointment is also asserted to
be one not in accordance with Articles 14,
16 and 21 of the Constitution, but the result
of an arbitrary selection influenced by
extraneous considerations.

16. In the rejoinder affidavit, the
petitioner has averred in paragraph No.5
that the entire inquiry was a fact finding
inquiry, done behind his back. The
allegation regarding undue influence is
attributed to a relative of his, a junior clerk
in the office of the Regional Higher
730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Education Officer. He has stated that a
junior clerk could not have influenced the
selection and appointment. It is also
averred that opportunity of hearing ought
have been given to the petitioner, not at the
level of the Authorized Controller, but the
State Government, who took the decision to
cancel appointments and rescind the
selection process relating to the petitioner.
No opportunity was given by the State
Government before passing the impugned
order dated 19.06.2015. It is also averred in
paragraph No.5 of the rejoinder that the
advertisement was in accordance with
rules. It was published in two newspapers
of wide circulation, to wit, the daily
'Hindustan' and the 'Dainik Jagran'.
About the petitioner not possessing a CCC
Certificate issued by the DOEACC Society,
it is pleaded that the requirement was
introduced through a Government Order
dated 03.11.2015 and would have no
application at the time when he was
selected. It is also asserted that the
petitioner, in any case, possesses a CCC
Certificate granted to him by the DOEACC
Society.

17. It is also pleaded that so far as the
petitioner's
selection
and
appointment
being influenced by Ravindra Nath Yadav,
a Clerk in the office of the Regional Higher
Education
Officer
is
concerned,
disciplinary proceedings initiated against
Ravindra Nath Yadav, on the charge of
influencing the selection process, has
resulted in a complete exoneration for him
and reinstatement in service vide order
dated 23.01.2016.

18. This petition as also the connected
matters were admitted to hearing on
06.05.2024 and heard on that day, and
again on 21.05.2024 extensively. There
was a change of roster, after which, under
orders of nomination by his Lordship the
Hon'ble The Chief Justice, the matter came
up again before me. It was heard further on
10.01.2025, 04.02.2025 and lastly on
10.03.2025, when judgment was reserved.

19. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kauntey
Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners
in Writ-A Nos.45146 of 2015, 41708 of
2015, 42482 of 2015, 42483 of 2015,
42843 of 2015, 42844 of 2015 and 45142
of 2015, Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mishra,
learned Counsel for the petitioner in WritA No.46719 of 2015, Mr. Abhishek
Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner
in Writ-A No.1441 of 2024, and Mr.
Shivendra Rajwar, Advocate holding brief
of Mr. Gautam Baghel, learned Counsel for
the petitioners in Writ-A No.42609 of
2015; Mr. Vivek Kumar Rai, learned
Counsel appearing for the respondent, Pt.
Deen
Dayal
Upadhyay
Gorakhpur
University,
Gorakhpur
in
Writ-A
Nos.45146 of 2015, 1441 of 2024 and
45142 of 2015; and Mr. Sharad Chandra
Upadhyay,
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the State respondents in all
the writ petitions. No one appears on behalf
of the other respondents, the Authorized
Controller or the Principal of the College in
any of the writ petitions.

20. It is submitted by Mr. Ashok
Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Kauntey Singh and Mr. Alok Mishra,
learned Counsel for the petitioners in WritA Nos.45146 of 2015, 41708 of 2015,
42482 of 2015, 42483 of 2015, 42843 of
2015, 42844 of 2015, 45142 of 2015 and
46719 of 2015, that the petitioners in each
of these writ petitions were appointed by
the Authorized Controller/ the Principal of
the A.P.N. or the Shiv Harsh, after an
8 All. Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
731
approval to the process of selection granted
by the Regional Higher Education Officer,
Gorakhpur. It is submitted by Mr. Khare
that the petitioners have been appointed
after invitation of applications by means of
advertisement published in newspapers in
accordance with the procedure prescribed
under Chapter XXIII of the Statutes of the
Gorakhpur University, in particular, Statute
23.01 to Statute 38. There is no infirmity in
the process of advertisement. It is next
argued that the order passed by the State
Government on 19.06.2015, which is the
basis of all orders individually impugned in
the writ petition, is ultra vires and beyond
the authority of the State Government to
make. The only authority vested in the
State Government under the U.P. State
Universities Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act
of 1973') are the powers conferred upon the
Government by virtue of Sections 40, 57,
58 and 59. The power under Section 40 is a
power of inspection with regard to
affiliated/
associated
colleges
of
the
University, where, directions envisaged in
the said provision can alone be issued.
Such power of inspection vested in the
State Government does not clothe them in
any manner with authority to annul
appointments of individual employees
made in the affiliated colleges of the
University.

21. The power under Sections 57 to 59
is a power to supersede the committee of
management by appointing an Authorized
Controller in contingencies contemplated
under the law. Neither of the aforesaid
provisions of the Act of 1973 confer power
or authority upon the State Government to
interfere with the selection and/ or
appointment
of
Class-III/
Class-IV
employees in the affiliated colleges of the
Universities governed by the Act of 1973.
Apart from the aforesaid power vested in
the
State
Government
regarding
supersession of the management in certain
cases, the only other authority vested in the
Government is under the Uttar Pradesh
State Control Over Public Corporations
Act, 1975 (for short, 'the Act of 1975'). It is
pointed out that the Act of 1975 empowers
the State Government to issue directions to
statutory
corporations,
but
excludes
Universities from the purview of the said
Act. The Act of 1973 alone governs the
Universities.
It
is
emphasized
that
individual selections and appointments do
not involve any policy matter. The final
authority to grant approval or take
objection against irregularity in selection
proceedings
is
the
Regional
Higher
Education Officer of the region. In the
present
case,
the
Regional
Higher
Education Officer, Gorakhpur has granted
approval to the petitioner's selection. It is
after grant of approval by the Regional
Higher Education Officer that appointment
orders in each case have been issued in
favour of the petitioner. They have
subsequently
joined
and
commenced
discharging duties.

22. It is next submitted that the
impugned order passed by the State
Government is entirely vague and fails to
specify the particulars of irregularities in
the selection proceedings or the consequent
appointment. In the absence of any specific
finding having been recorded by the State
Government, it was, in no manner, open for
the Government to pass the order impugned
dated 19.06.2015. The other orders are
merely consequential. It is argued that the
State Government have passed the order
impugned without opportunity of hearing
being afforded to the petitioners. The order
is, therefore, a nullity. The learned Counsel
for the petitioners submits that it is a settled
principle of the law that an order, as serious
732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as cancellation of appointment, where
candidates have joined, entitle them to the
grant of opportunity of hearing before such
a drastic order, carrying civil consequences,
is made. Here, that opportunity has not
been afforded by the Government, who
have taken the substantial decision in the
matter. In support of his contention, learned
Counsel for the petitioners places reliance
upon the authority of the Supreme Court in
Nisha Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh
and others, (2014) 16 SCC 392 and
another decision of their Lordships of the
Supreme Court in Indian Institute of
Information Technology, Allahabad and
another v. Dr. Anurika Vaish and others,
(2017) 5 SCC 660.

23. It is, in the last, submitted that the
order impugned passed by the Government
is invalid, as it fails to make an endeavour
to segregate the tainted portion of the
selection proceedings from the untainted
part thereof. Instead, a composite order has
been passed, cancelling all Class-III and
Class-IV
appointments
made
in
two
different postgraduate colleges of the
district. This cannot be done, according to
the learned Counsel, and he reposes faith
for the purpose in the authority of the
Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Jal
Nigam and others v. Ajit Singh Patel and
others, (2019) 12 SCC 285.

24. Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mishra,
learned Counsel in support of Writ-A
No.46719 of 2015 has emphasized that
under the First Statutes of the University,
the appointing authority, in relation to
Class-III employees, is the management of
the
college,
whereas
for
Class-IV
employees, it is the Principal. It is
emphasized that the two petitioners in this
writ petition have been selected and
appointed to Class-III posts; one of them a
Routine Grade Clerk, and the other, a
Library Clerk. They were appointed in the
establishment of the Shiv Harsh. The
advertisement relative to the two vacancies
was issued in the 'Dainik Jagran' and the
'Hindustan', both reputed dailies, issues
dated
14.09.2013.
The
qualification
advertised for the Routine Grade Clerk was
an intermediate certificate and the post was
reserved for SC/ ST. For the Library Clerk,
which
was
an
unserved
post,
the
qualification prescribed as essential was an
intermediate
certificate.
Preferential
qualification was also mentioned as a
B.Lib. Degree. The selection committee,
which selected the petitioners in this case,
held interview on 16.01.2014. It comprised
the following members:

(i) Dr. Jay Prakash, Nominee of
the Authorized Controller;

(ii)
Ajeet
Kumar
Pandey,
Principal of the College;

(iii) District Inspector of Schools,
Basti;

(iv)
District
Employment
Exchange Officer, Basti.

25. The petitioners were selected by
the aforesaid
selection committee
in
accordance with the procedure prescribed.
The Regional Higher Education Officer
granted approval to their selection, upon
which,
letters
of
appointment
dated
27.01.2014 were issued by the Authorized
Controller of the Shiv Harsh in their
favour. Both the petitioners joined the Shiv
Harsh on 29.01.2014. The inquiry against
the petitioners was ordered by the State
Government upon an Hon'ble MLA's
complaint, which was a fact finding
8 All. Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
733
inquiry. The petitioners were not heard
there at all, and if that report were to form
the basis of action, it would be gross
violation of principles of natural justice.

26. Mr. Khare submits that the State
Government had taken a decision to cancel
the selection proceedings. The orders,
therefore, made by the Director (Higher
Education) and the appointing authority in
the Institutions was nothing more than a
ritual, as Mr. Khare puts it. It is argued by
Mr.
Khare
that
a
post
decisional
opportunity
of
hearing
before
the
Authorities of the Directorate of Education
or the Management of the Institutions,
would not avail the petitioners, inasmuch as
they would be bound by the orders of the
State Government. They cannot arrive at a
contrary
conclusion,
once
the
State
Government had taken a decision to cancel
the selection process and the resultant
appointment. Learned Counsel for the
petitioners argues that the power to take
disciplinary action and award punishment
vests in the appointing authority under
Statute 24.02 of the First Statutes of the
University and the decision has to be
reported by the appointing authority to the
District Inspector of Schools (DIOS). The
decision does not take effect, unless
approved by the DIOS in writing. There is
a provision for appeal against the order of
the DIOS to the Regional Higher Education
Officer. In the present case, it is submitted
that there is a blatant violation of the
principles of natural justice, because the
State Government had taken the effective
decision, which they have communicated to
the Director (Higher Education) without
hearing
the
petitioners.
It
is
also
emphasized that the qualification of the
CCC Certificate earned from the DOEACC
Society was not the requirement of the law
at the point of time when the petitioners
were selected. It came later on. Also, the
B.Lib. Degree, in case of the Library Clerk,
was a preferential qualification and not an
essential one.

27. Likewise, in support of Writ-A
No.42609 of 2015, Mr. Shivendra Rajwar,
Advocate holding brief of Mr. Gautam
Baghel, learned Counsel for the petitioners
submits that the Authorized Controller,
before dispensing with the services of the
petitioners, has not bothered to take
approval of the DIOS, pursuant to Clause
24.03 of the First Statutes of the University,
vitiating
the
impugned
order.
It
is
emphasized by the learned Counsel for the
petitioners here that a perusal of the
impugned order dated 19.06.2015 would
show that there is no specific allegation as
regards the petitioners or the selection
proceedings,
which
resulted
in
their
appointment. The order of the State
Government is omnibus and blanket. The
individual features given in the orders of
the Authorized Controller are of no
consequence, because the true decision
maker in the matter, the State Government,
has not considered cases individually. It is
also emphasized that in this case, the
Chairperson of the selection committee, Dr.
Raj Kumar Pathak and two members
thereof, to wit, Dr. Lalu Ram Bhardwaj and
Dr. Rajendra Baudh, were both arraigned in
disciplinary proceedings on charges of
nepotism relating to the selection that had
led to the petitioners' appointment, but were
exonerated after inquiry. Reference in the
matter is made to the documents annexed
as Annexure No. RA-1 and Annexure No.
RA-2 to the rejoinder affidavit. The learned
Counsel, therefore, submits that those who
comprised the selection committee, having
been
exonerated
of
the
charges
of
nepotism, the petitioners' selection cannot
be said to be tainted.
734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

28. Mr. Sharad Chandra Upadhyay,
learned Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, has
submitted that the inquiry ordered by the
State Government into selections and
appointments of Class-III and Class-IV
employees at the A.P.N. and the Shiv
Harsh, was done by two independent and
impartial
Principals
of
Government
Postgraduate
Colleges.
Full
and
fair
opportunity was given to those likely to be
adversely affected by the outcome of the
inquiry.