# Dr. Dinesh Jha v. Chancellor, University of Alld.,Lucknow & others

- **Citation:** (1999) 2 ILRA 242
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999-05-06
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-dinesh-jha-v-chancellor-university-of-alld-lucknow-others-39328
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
242
dismiss the writ petition. In paragraph 27 it is denied that there was
any collusion between S.K. Agarwal and respondent no. 5

In paragraph 30 of the counter affidavit it is stated that in all
other Engineering Colleges which are maintained by the State
Government selection and appointment on the post of Principal is
made according to their own Memorandum of Association and bye
laws of the Society. Hence by making amendment of the law in the
case of Motilal Nehru Engineering college, the process of selection
and appointment has been made uniform.

In our opinion there is no merit in this petition. As already
stated above the petitioner was appointed as Principal after a valid
selection by the selection committee under bye law 4 of Society's,
Bye Laws. We see no unconstitutionality in U.P. Amendment Act 9
of 1998, and in particular the said amendment does not violate
Article 14 of the Constitution.

Thus there is no force in this petition and it is accordingly
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 -
7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -
7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 36373 OF 1999

7KH &KLHI 3RVW 0DVWHU
« 3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6KUL 0RKDPPDG 6DOLP DQG DQRWKHU
« 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 6KUL 6DWLVK &KDWXUYHGL
$GGO 6WDQGLQJ &RXQVHO
*RYHUQPHQW RI ,QGLD
&RXQVHO IRU 5HVSRQGHQWV
 6&
$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLDWKH UHFRYHU\ RI KRXVH UHQW
FDQQRW EH PDGH IURP WKH SHQVLRQ EXW FDQ EH PDGH E\ RWKHU
1999
------
Dr. Dinesh Jha
 Vs.
Chancellor,
University of
Alld.,Lucknow
& others.
------
M. Katju,J.
Krishna
Kumar, J.
1999
------
August, 25
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
243
PHDQVWKH WHQGHQF\ RI WKH JRYW VHUYDQW RU HPSOR\HHV RI SXEOLF
VHFWRU
XQGHUWDNLQJ
RI
FRQWLQXLQJ
WR
RFFXS\
WKH
RIILFLDO
DFFRPRGDWLRQ HYHQ DIWHU UHWLUHPHQW RU WUDQVIHU KDV EHFRPH ZLGH
VSUHDG DQG PXVW EH VWRSSHG

By the Court

This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of
the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 6.5.1999 copy of which is
Annexure 4 to the petition.

The respondent no. 1 retired as postman on 19.5.1995 but he
continued occupying the official accommodation in his possession
and hence the rent of Rs. 900/- was ordered to be recovered from his
pension for the house rent with interest. The respondent no. 1 filed a
petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal which allowed
this petition by the impugned order and held that the recovery of
house rent cannot be made from the respondent's pension but it can
be made by other means.

On the facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined
to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution by
interfering with the impugned order. However, we are informed that
the respondent no. 1 is still occupying the official accommodation
even four and a half years after his retirement. This is indeed
shocking. We are of the opinion that the respondent no. 1 must
vacate the official accommodation in his possession immediately.
This tendency of government servants or employees of public
sector under taking of continuing to occupy the official
accommodation even after retirement or transfer has become wide
spread and must now be stopped. It has to be realised when a person
retires or is transferred he should vacate the official accommodation
in his possession within a reasonable period otherwise his successor
will have no place to live in. There are cases coming up before this
court where a government employee continued to retain the official
accommodation even several years after his retirement or transfer.
This practice has to be deprecated and must be stopped now.

Hence on the facts and circumstances of the case while we do
not exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution
against the impugned order, we direct the respondent no. 1 to vacate
the official accommodation in his possession forthwith. We further
issue a general mandamus directing the employees of the Central and
1999
------
The Chief Post
Master
 Vs.
Mohd. Salim
and another
------
M. Katju, J.
D.R.
Chaudhary, J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
244
State Government to vacate the official accommodation in their
possession on their transfer or retirement within the period
prescribed by the Rules or if there are no such Rules then within
three months of the date of retirement or transfer, failing which they
will be evicted by police force.

With these observations the petition is disposed of finally.

Let the Registrar of this Court send a copy of this judgment to
the Central and State government through the Secretary of the
Department concerned so that this judgment is strictly complied with
in future and this practice of retaining official accommodation even
after transfer/retirement is stopped.

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
&RPPLWWHH RI 0DQDJHPHQW DQG RWKHUV
« 3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
'LVWULFW ,QVSHFWRU RI 6FKRROV DQG RWKHUV
« 5HVSRGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
 6KUL 3UDNDVK 3DGLD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
 6&
6KUL $. 3DQGH\
6KUL -3 6LQJK

$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD2WKH RUGHU RI VXVSHQVLRQ
SDVVHG DJDLQVW WKH KHDG RI LQVWLWXWLRQ LV VXEMHFW WR WKH VXSHUYLVLRQ
E\ ',26 WKH SHWLWLRQHU PD\ DYDLO WKH UHPHG\ EHIRUH WKH ',26

By the Court

This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari for
quashing the impugned order dated 9.7.1999 Annexure 20 to the writ
petition and for a mandamus restraining the respondents from
interfering in the affairs of the institution in question and directing
the respondent no. 1 to pass a speaking order regarding its approval
1999
------
The Chief Post
Master
 Vs.
Mohd. Salim
and another
------
M. Katju, J.
D.R.
Chaudhary, J.
1999
------
August, 25