# Dr. M.P. Singh v. The State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 91
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-m-p-singh-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-others-39161
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

2All] Dr. M.P. Singh V. The State of U.P. and others

reported in A.I.R. 1992 S.C. - 917 it was
held that in deciding matters relating to
orders
passed
by
authorities
of
educational institutions the court should
normally be very slow to pass orders in its
jurisdiction because matters falling within
the jurisdiction of educational authorities
should normally be left to their decision
and court should interfere with them only
when it thinks that it must do so in the
interest of justice. Earlier in the case of
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary
and Higher Secondary Education end
another Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Seth
Etc. - A.I.R. 1984 S.C. - 1543, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reminded that as
has been repeatedly pointed out the court
should be extremely reluctant to substitute
its own views as to what is wise, prudent
and proper in relation to academic matters
in preference to those formulated by
professional men possessing technical
expertise and rich experience of actual
day to day working of educational
institutions
and
the
departments
controlling them. It will be wholly wrong
for the court to make pedantic and purely
idealistic approach to the problems of this
nature isolated from the actual realities
and grass root problems involved in the
working of the system and unmindful of
the consequences, which would emanate
if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a
pragmatic one were to be propounded.
The above guiding principles of law laid
down by the apex court in a series of
cases with regard to educational matters
are also equally applicable in cases where
examinations are conducted by the public
service
commission
a
constitutional
authority.

18. Here in the instant case, the
interest of justice does not demand in the
absence of any material, whatsoever, that
interference of the court is called for in
the matter. As said above, there has been
a in-built objective criteria for applying
the scaling system which, as said above,
is an integral part of the process of
selection adopted by the Commission.
There is absolutely no ground to annul or
scrap the selection, which has taken place.
The wholly tenuous and feeble grounds
taken by the petitioners to a said the
selection process as well as declaration of
result are not well merited.

19. In the result, all the four writ
petitions fail and are, therefore, dismissed
without any order as to costs.
Petition Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' -$18$5<
'$7(' $//$+$%$' -$18$5<
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21
%/( 65 6,1*+ -
7+( +21
%/( 65 6,1*+ -
7+( +21
%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -
7+( +21
%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

'U 03 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH 6WDWH RI 83 DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 5DNHVK %DKDGXU
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL -DL 3UDDNDVVK 5DL
6KUL 9. 6KXNOD
6KUL 6KDVKL .DQW 6KDUPD
6KUL 81 6KDUPD
6KUL 5. 3RUZDO
6&

&KDWUDSDWL
6DKXML
0DKDUDM
8QLYHUVLW\
6WDWXWH 6HQLRULW\ RI DQ DIILOLDWHG
3RVW JUDGXDWH &ROOHJH %DVLV RI VHQLRULW\
VKDOO EH WKH OHQJWK RI VHUYLFH WHDFKLQJ LQ
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
3RVW *UDGXDWH RU 'HFUHH 'HSDUWPHQW
KHOG
QR
VLJQLILFDQW
DGPLWWHGO\
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU LV VHQLRU WR WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
QR
HQWLWOHG
WR
ZRUN
DV
RIILFLDWLQJ
3ULQFLSDO
WLOO
WKH
5HJXODUO\
VHOHFWHG
FDQGLGDWH MRLQ
+HOG 3DUD DQG
7KLV &RXUW LQ WKH FDVH DIRUHVDLG KDV
FOHDUO\ KHOG WKDW WKH 6WDWXWH PDNH QR
GLVWLQFWLRQ
EHWZHHQ
WHDFKHUV
RI
WKH
'HJUHH 'HSDUWPHQW RU WKRVH RI 3RVW
*UDGXDWH 'HSDUWPHQW DSSRLQWHG LQ WKH
VDPH FDGUH DQG VDPH JUDGH
,Q
RXU
RSLQLRQ
WKH
FULWHULRQ
IRU
DSSRLQWPHQW DV RIILFLDWLQJ 3ULQFLSDO LQ DQ
DIILOLDWHG
&ROOHJH
LV
VHQLRULW\
7KH
3HWLWLRQHU EHLQJ VHQLRU WR WKH IRXUWK
UHVSRQGHQW
LV
HQWLWOHG
WR
ZRUN
DV
RIILFLDWLQJ
3ULQFLSDO
7KH
IRXUWK
UHVSRQGHQW KDV QR ULJKW WR ZRUN DV
RIILFLDWLQJ 3ULQFLSDO
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
:3
1R

RI

GHFLGHG
RQ
 UHOLHG RQ

By the Court

1. The petitioner, a teacher in K.K.
Post
Graduate
College,
Etawah
(hereinafter refereed to as the College)
has filed this writ petition for issuance of
a direction to the respondents to give
effect
to
the
seniority
list
dated
15.11.1996 and permit the petitioner to
function as officiating Principal of the
College and/ or handover the charge of
the office of the Principal of the College
to the petitioner. The College is affiliated
to Chatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University
of Kanpur, in short the University

2. It is not disputed that the
permanent Principal Dr. Om Shankar
Srivastava
was
suspended
by
the
Management on 6.8.1997 and in the
resulted vacancy, Dr. Vidya Kant Tiwari,
respondent no. 4, was appointed as
officiating Principal on 8.8.1997. The
grievance of the petitioner is that although
according to Statute 13.20 of the First
Statutes of the Kanpur University, the
Management have had the discretion to
appoint "any teacher to officiate as
Principal for a period of three months or
until the appointment of a regular
Principal, whichever is earlier" but they
have no right to allow the fourth
respondent to continue beyond the period
of three months. Continuance of the 4th
respondent beyond the period of three
months is in utter disregard of the
provisions of Statute 13.20 of the First
Statutes of the Kanpur University. The
petitioner who is senior to Dr. Vidya Kant
Tiwari staked his claim for working as
officiating Principal of the College on or
after 8.11.1997 but since the Management
and the Vice Chancellor of the University
were in collusion with Dr. Vidya Kant
Tiwari they paid no heed in the matter and
accordingly a writ petition being Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 3006 of 1999 was
filed by the petitioner and two others for
appropriate
direction
to
ensure
compliance of Statute 13.20. The writ
petition came to be disposed of with the
direction to the Vice Chancellor to
consider and dispose of the representation
dated 23.11.1998 and pass appropriate
order
expeditiously.

The

Vice
Chancellor by his order dated 11.7.1999
held that since the permanent Principal
Dr. Om Shankar Srivastava joined the
post after his suspension order was
recalled
by
the
committee
of
Management, the representation had been
rendered anfractuous. The permanent
Principal Dr. Om Shankar Srivastava has
since attained the age of superannuation
but the fourth respondent a junior teacher
in the College was again appointed as
2All] Dr. M.P. Singh V. The State of U.P. and others

officiating Principal and has continued for
more than three months.

3. We have had heard Sri Rakesh
Bahadur for the petitioner and Sri Jai
Prakash Rai, Sri V.K. Shukla, Sri Shashi
Kant Sharma holding brief of Sri U.N.
Sharma and Sri R.K. Porwal for the
respondents.

Statute 13.20 of the First Statute of
Kanpur University being relevant to the
question involved herein is quoted below:

"When the office of the Principal of
an Affiliated College falls vacant, the
Management may appoint any teacher to
officiate as Principal for a period of three
months or until the appointment of a
regular Principal, whichever is earlier. If
on or before the expiry of the period of
three months, any regular Principal is not
appointed, or such a Principal does not
assume office, the senior most teacher in
the college shall officiate as Principal of
such College until a regular Principal is
appointed"

4. It is evident from the provision
aforestated that in the event of occurrence
of a vacancy in the post of the Principal,
the Management of an affiliated college
has been given a discretion to appoint 'any
teacher', to officiate as Principal for
period
of
three
months
or
until
appointment
of
a
regular
Principal
whichever is earlier. If on or before the
expiry of the period of three months, any
regular Principal is not appointed, or such
a Principal does not assume office, the
senior most teacher in the college shall
officiate as Principal of such College until
a regular Principal is appointed. The
language employed in Statute 13.20
makes it abundantly clear that if a regular
Principal is not appointed within three
months or such Principal does not join
before the expiry of three months, the
senior most teacher in the College 'shall'
officiate as Principal of such College until
a regular Principal is appointed. The right
of the senior most teacher in the College
to officiate as Principal till a regular
Principal is appointed, is not dependent
on any formal order of appointment by
the Management or Vice Chancellor. It is
not disputed that the fourth respondent is
not the senior most teacher in the College
and the petitioner is admittedly senior the
fourth respondent. In paragraph no. 14 of
the writ petition it has been averred that
Prof. B.B.L. Agarwal, the senior most
teacher of the College, has already retired
and Dr. A.K.Gupta next in order of
seniority has proceeded on long leave
since the last several years and has,
perhaps taken job in United Stated of
America and Dr. T.N. Verma, the third
teacher in order of seniority, has also
retired and Dr. D. K. Agarwal, ranking
fourth in the seniority list has declined to
work as officiating Principal an, therefore,
the petitioner being the next senior most
teacher became entitled to officiate as
Principal after expiration of period of
three months from the date the fourth
respondent was appointed ass officiating
principal of the College.

5. However, for the respondents it
has been submitted that the fourth
respondent being the senior most teacher
in the Post Graduate Department of the
College, is entitled to work as officiating
Principal of the College in the absence of
a regular Principal. Reliance has been
placed upon the communication dated
12.9.1993, annexed as Annexure No. CA
3 to the counter affidavit, addressed by
the Assistant Registrar of the University
94 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
to the Secretary of the Committee of
Management
of
the
College.
The
communication contained in the letter
dated 12.9.1993 cannot override the
specific
provisions contained in the
Statute 13.20 which makes no distinction
between a teacher of the Post Graduate
Department and a teacher in the Degree
Department. It is settled that in the same
cadre, seniority of a teacher of an
affiliated College, as provided in Statute
18.05 read with Statute 18.16 of the first
Statute of the Kanpur University, is
determined " according to the length of
his continuous service in substantive
capacity" Statute 18.10 provides that
seniority of Principal and other teachers
shall be determined by the length of
continuous service from the date of
appointment in substantive capacity. No
provision in the Statutes provides that a
teacher in the Post Graduate Department
will be senior to a teacher in the degree
department. The contention raised by the
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
respondent that the petitioner being a
teacher in the Degree Department is not
entitled to work as officiating Principal in
preference to the fourth respondent who is
a teacher in the Post Graduate Department
cannot be countenanced in view of the
specific provision contained in Statute
13.20 read with Statute 18.10 A common
seniority list of teachers in the same cadre
and same grade, whether working in the
Degree Department or in the Post
Graduate Department, is prepared and
admittedly the petitioner as well as fourth
respondent are in the same cadre and
same grade. Merely because the fourth
respondent is teaching in the Post
Graduate Department is no ground to hold
him senior to the petitioner. In Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 42347 of 2000
Dr.
Shyam
Badan
Singh
Versus
Chancellor,
Deen
Dayal
Upadhyay
Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur and
others decided on 12th December, 2000
Government Order dated 9.7.1968 came
up for consideration in which it was, inter
alia provided that if two teachers are in
the same grade, one belonging to the Post
Graduate Department would be senior
with
one
belonging
to
the
Degree
Department. This Court held that such
provision contained in the Government
Order was "incompatible with the scheme
laid
down
in
the
Statutes
for
determination of seniority" for the reason
that
qualification
and
manner
of
appointment and inter se seniority of
teachers of affiliated Colleges in the same
cadre and grade is to be determined b the
length of service to be reckoned with
reference to the date of their substantive
appointments
irrespective
of
whether
appointment is made in the Degree
department or Post Graduate Department.
This Court in the case aforesaid has
clearly held that the Statute makes no
distinction
between
teachers
of
the
Degree Department or those of Post
Graduate
Department
appointment
appointed in the same cadre and same
grade.

6. It was then contended by the
counsel appearing for the respondents that
the petitioner was not qualified for
appointment as a Principal in the post
Graduate Department. In our opinion, the
criterion for appointment as officiating
Principal in an affiliated College is
seniority. The petitioner being senior to
the fourth respondent is entitled to work
as
officiating
Principal.
The
fourth
respondent has no right to work as
officiating Principal.
2All] Dr. M.P. Singh V. The State of U.P. and others

7. In the facts and circumstances of
the case the writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The respondents are directed to
handover
the
charge
of
officiating
Principal of the College to the petitioner
within ten days of furnishing certified
copy
of
this
order
before
the
Secretary/Manager of the College. The
petitioner shall be entitled to work as
officiating Principal until replaced by a
regularly selected/ appointed Principal
unless, of course, Dr. A.K. Gupta or Dr.
D.K. Agarwal, who are senior to the
petitioner,
stake
their
claim
for
appointment as officiating Principal.