# Dr. Avanish Prakash Singh and another v. The State of U.P.and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 609
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-06-21
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35774 of 2010
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon, Rajesh Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-avanish-prakash-singh-and-another-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-others-41647
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art. 226-Petitioner
working as lecturer on Manday basishaving
teaching
experience-seeking
preference in substantive appointmentin absence of statutory provision no such
direction can be issued by writ court.

Held: Para 7 & 8

Selection for appointment as teacher on
Mandeya under the Government Order
dated 07.04.1998 does not provide for
any such adjustment of teacher against
such subsequent vacancies and nor any
preference, on the strength of earlier
working as teacher on Mandeya has been
provided for.

So far as the order of the Division Bench
of this court passed in writ petition no.
11124 of 2009 is concerned. Suffice to
record that no legal proposition has been
laid down by the judgement. Only a
direction was issued to consider the
request made as per the law. The law
has
been
explained
by
this
court.
Therefore, no further consideration by
the Regional Higher Education Officer is
required.

## Text

2 All] Dr. Avanish Prakash Singh and another V The State of U.P.and others
609
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.06.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJESH CHANDRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35774 of 2010

Dr. Avanish Prakash Singh and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Smt. Arti Raje
Sri Satyawan Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Petitioner
working as lecturer on Manday basishaving
teaching
experience-seeking
preference in substantive appointmentin absence of statutory provision no such
direction can be issued by writ court.

Held: Para 7 & 8

Selection for appointment as teacher on
Mandeya under the Government Order
dated 07.04.1998 does not provide for
any such adjustment of teacher against
such subsequent vacancies and nor any
preference, on the strength of earlier
working as teacher on Mandeya has been
provided for.

So far as the order of the Division Bench
of this court passed in writ petition no.
11124 of 2009 is concerned. Suffice to
record that no legal proposition has been
laid down by the judgement. Only a
direction was issued to consider the
request made as per the law. The law
has
been
explained
by
this
court.
Therefore, no further consideration by
the Regional Higher Education Officer is
required.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tondon, J.)

1. Petitioner who are two in number
claim to be appointed on Mandeya against
the substantive vacancies which were
available in Udai Pratap Autonomous
College, Varanasi. The appointment was
made in terms of the Government order
dated 7th April, 1988 where under
payment to such Mandeya Teachers was
to be made on per lecture basis subject to
the
maximum
provided.
Their
appointment was to commence in July
end with the close of Academic Session.
Clause 3 of the Government order further
provided
that
continuance
of
such
teachers appointed on Madeya for the
next academic session would require fresh
selection for the purpose. It is Stated that
the petitioner along with other candidates
filed writ petition no. 27167 of 2007
before this court seeking continuance as
teacher on Mandeya against the available
vacancy without under going the process
of selection for the next academic session.
The writ Court passed an interim order
providing that the teachers working on
Mandeya shall continue as such till
regular appointment is made on the post
in question.

2. Thus on the statement made by
the counsel for the petitioner this court
has no hesitation to record that the right of
the petitioners to continue as teachers on
Mandeya in the institution against the post
was subject to the condition that such
appointment would come to as automatic
end when a regular teacher is apointed
after due selection on the post.

3. From paragraph 17 of the present
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
writ petition it is established that Dr.
Pushpraj Sonkar and Dr. Rakesh Kumar
have been selected by U.P. Higher
Education Service Commission under
advertisement no. 41 for the post held by
the petitioners earlier and they have also
been appointed. In view of the aforesaid
fact the interim order passed by the Court
in writ petition no. 27167 of 2007 cannot
be the basis for the continuance of the
petitioner any further.

4. By means of the present writ
petition the petitioners contend that two
subsequent vacancies have fallen vacant
in the institution due to retirement of one
Sri Badri Nath Singh and second Dr.
Parmatma Nand Singh and it is again
these fresh vacancies, the management of
the institution has made a proposal for
continuance of the petitioner under letter
dated 15th June, 2010. the petitioners
seeks consideration of the papers so
transmitted to the Regional Higher
Education officer for continuance of the
petitioner against the newly available
vacancies
because
of
their
earlier
appointment
as
Mandeya
teachers.
Reliance has also been placed upon the
order of the Division Bench of this Court
passed in writ petition no 11124 of 2009
Smt. Dr. Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of
U.P. and others for the purpose.

5. We have heard counsel for the
petitioner and have examined the records.
We are of the considered opinion that the
earlier appointment of petitioners against
the existing vacancies in the year 2007 was
subject to the condition that it will come to
an end on appointment of regular candidate
on recommendation of the commission to
similar effect is the order passed by Court
in writ petition no. 27167 of 2007 as has
been stated by the counsel for the
petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot
claim any right to continue as Mandeya
teacher against any subsequent vacancies
which may have caused in the institution
because of retirement of two teachers
namely Sri Badri Nath Singh and Dr.
Parmatma Nand Singh. Against these fresh
vacancies appointment on Mandeya has to
be made after advertisement and following
the Government Order applicable on the
subject dated 07.04.1998. The resolution of
the committee of management directing
adjustment of the petitioner against the
subsequent vacancies is patently arbitrary
and
not
in
accordance
with
the
Government Order dated 07.04.1998. It is
needless to emphasize that large number of
candidates must become eligible for the
said post, for appointment on Mandeya
between the period the petitioner was
earlier appointed and till the fresh vacancy
are caused in the institution is advertised.
Any order to continue the petitioner
against new vacancies would be voilative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

6. At this stage counsel for the
petitioner
submitted
that
since
the
petitioner have taught earlier for number of
years, they have teaching experience and
should be continued as teacher on
Mandeya. The contention has only been
stated to be rejected.

7. Selection for appointment as
teacher on Mandeya under the Government
Order dated 07.04.1998 does not provide
for any such adjustment of teacher against
such subsequent vacancies and nor any
preference, on the strength of earlier
working as teacher on Mandeya has been
provided for.

8. So far as the order of the Division
Bench of this court passed in writ petition
2 All] Manna and others V The State of U.P
611
no. 11124 of 2009 is concerned. Suffice to
record that no legal proposition has been
laid down by the judgment. Only a
direction was issued to consider the request
made as per the law. The law has been
explained by this court. Therefore, no
further consideration by the Regional
Higher Education Officer is required.

9. At this stage counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner may
be granted liberty to apply and they be
considered. It is not necessary for this
Court to issue any such direction that as
the petitioner if eligible in terms of
advertisement published can always apply
and their application shall be taken care of
by the authority concerned as per the
conditions applicable.

The writ petition is dismissed.
---------

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.05.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE UMA NATH SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 941 of 1981

Manna and others

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The State

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.K. Dixit
Sri Madhurima Bhargava
Sri Mamta Singh Yadav

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Appeal-Charges not properly
framed by the Trial court from perusal of
case diary offense Under Section 396,
302 and 412 made out but Trial Judge
framed charge for offense Under Section
460/201
IPC
only-held-Trial
Judge
committed great error by not framing
charge regarding murder and disposing
of dead body stealthily in order to
disappearance
of
evidence-appeal
allowed and remanded back to frame
appropriate
charges
ofter
hearing
prosecution and accused person and to
conclude Trial as the earliest possible
considering long term of pendency of
Trial.

Held: Para 21

On the basis of the above discussion, we
are of the view that learned lower court
has committed an error in framing the
charges under Section 460/201 I.P.C.
only. He should have framed charges
regarding murder of the deceased and
disposing of his dead body stealthily in
order
to
cause
disappearance
of
evidence
and
while
framing
such
charges, he should have also considered
the circumstances which are indicative
of the offences relating to theft, robbery
or dacoity and should have also framed
charges regarding these offences.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava, J.)

1. The appellants Manna, Munai and
Ram Prasad have been found guilty under
Sections 460/201 I.P.C. by learned II
Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi in S.T.
No. 223/80 vide judgment and order dated
11.12.1981. Each of the appellant has
been sentenced to life imprisonment
under Section 460 I.P.C. and 5 years R.I.
for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C.
They have also been sentenced to pay
fine.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the
deceased Ramghulam, was a resident of
village Gogadeo where he lived in his