# Dr Manoj Kumar Rawat v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 696
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-05
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 117 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Praveen Kumar Giri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-manoj-kumar-rawat-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54603
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Varun Dev Sharma, Ankit Shukla, Avneesh
Tripathi,C.S.C.,
Gagan
Mehta,
Parijat
Mishra

A. Service Law - UP Education Service
Selection Commission Act, 2023 - UP
Higher Education Act, 1980 - Section
13(4) - Jurisdiction of Director - Selection
list
was
prepared
in
furtherance
of
advertisement issued under old Act of
1980 - How far Director has jurisdiction to
intimate the name of a candidate from
such list for appointment in vacancy
arisen after New Act - Held, the power
available
to
the
Director
under
the
previous enactment, particularly, section
13(4) of the Act, 1980 would not be
available to be exercised after the new Act
of 2023 has come into effect - Once the
new Act contains no power with the
Director to fill up a substantive vacancy
which has come into existence later, to be
filled from a candidate selected in an
earlier advertisement, the action of the
Director would be without jurisdiction.
(Para 15 and 17)

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)

## Text

696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 437A of Cr.P.C. provided he is not
wanted in any other case.

33. Copy of this order be sent by the
Registrar
(Compliance)
to
the
Chief
Judicial Magistrate concerned for necessary
action.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 696
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Special Appeal No. 117 of 2025

Dr Manoj Kumar Rawat ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Alka Upadhyay, Manish Tiwari, Naveen
Kumar
Tripathi,
Prabhakar
Awasthi,
Sr.Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
Varun Dev Sharma, Ankit Shukla, Avneesh
Tripathi,C.S.C.,
Gagan
Mehta,
Parijat
Mishra

A. Service Law - UP Education Service
Selection Commission Act, 2023 - UP
Higher Education Act, 1980 - Section
13(4) - Jurisdiction of Director - Selection
list
was
prepared
in
furtherance
of
advertisement issued under old Act of
1980 - How far Director has jurisdiction to
intimate the name of a candidate from
such list for appointment in vacancy
arisen after New Act - Held, the power
available
to
the
Director
under
the
previous enactment, particularly, section
13(4) of the Act, 1980 would not be
available to be exercised after the new Act
of 2023 has come into effect - Once the
new Act contains no power with the
Director to fill up a substantive vacancy
which has come into existence later, to be
filled from a candidate selected in an
earlier advertisement, the action of the
Director would be without jurisdiction.
(Para 15 and 17)

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.)

1. This appeal arises out of an order
dated 17.02.2025 passed by learned Single
Judge in Writ-A No. 15433 of 2024,
whereby, the placement of the appellant
pursuant to order of Director dated
15.01.2024 in Meerut College, Meerut, has
been set aside.

2. The undisputed facts of the case as
are noticed by learned Single Judge are that
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Higher
Education
Services Commission (hereinafter referred
to as "Commission") issued Advertisement
No. 49 of 2019 inviting applications for
appointment to 219 posts of Principal in
aided Post-Graduate Colleges in the State
of Uttar Pradesh. This advertisement
included the post of Principal in Meerut
College, Meerut. The appellant participated
in the selection proceedings and was
ultimately placed in the waiting list. It
transpires that one Dr. Sachchidanand
Sharma was placed as Principal in
Meerut
College,
Meerut.
He
joined
pursuant to his placement and worked in
the college for nearly 1 and 1/2 year,
whereafter, he left. The post of principal in
Meerut College, Meerut, has, thereafter,
fallen vacant.

3. The records reveal that the appellant
though was initially placed in the waiting
list but he secured appointment on account
of vacancies which were found to have
5 All. Dr Manoj Kumar Rawat Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
697
existed in the recruitment exercise and was
placed at Bajrang Post-Graduate College,
Ballia. The placement order of appellant at
Bajrang Post-Graduate College, Ballia,
dated 03.08.2022 is on record of this paper
book at page 100. It is undisputed that the
appellant never joined at Bajrang PostGraduate College, Ballia and the parties are
at issue with regard to reason on account of
which he had not joined. The appellant
states that he was not issued appointment
letter by the Committee of Management.
The other version is that the appellant never
appeared before the Managing Committee
for joining. There are also communications
on records to show that the appellant had
expressed personal difficulties as being the
reason on account of which he made
request for his placement in any other
college. It is on account of such request
made by the appellant that the Director
passed the order dated 15.01.2024 placing
the appellant at Meerut College, Meerut. It
is against this order of the Director dated
15.01.2024 that the writ petition came to be
filed by the officiating principal of the
college questioning the placement order of
the respondent dated 15.01.2024.

4. Learned Single Judge has taken note
of the facts of the case and has come to the
conclusion that the respondent Dr. Anjali
Mittal was given charge of the office of
Principal after Dr. Sachchidanand Sharma
resigned from the post of principal and
that she was entitled to continue being the
senior most teacher in the college.
Learned Single Judge has also opined that
by the time order was passed by the
Director
allocating
Bajrang
PostGraduate
College,
Ballia,
to
the
appellant, the process of appointment had
come to an end and it was not open for
the Director to have passed the impugned
placement order.

5. When the matter was heard on the
last occasion, an issue was raised as to
whether there was any default on the part
of the appellant in joining at Bajrang PostGraduate College, Ballia or was it due to
default of the Managing Committee in not
issuing him appointment that he could not
join. In order to resolve the controversy, we
directed the concerned Director to examine
the records and file his personal affidavit.
An affidavit has been filed by the Director
stating as under in paragraph nos. 6 and
7:

"6. That as per the information
provided by the Principal Shri Bajrang
Post Graduate College Dadar Ashram,
Sikandarpur Ballia vide letter no. S.B.P.G.
/
1487/2025
dated
13.03.2025,
the
Principal has informed that the college
submitted the file to the Authorized
Controller/District Magistrate Ballia on
13/08/2022 for further action. The District
Magistrate Ballia, referring the point 4(b)
mentioned in the office letter no. Degree
Arth-1 (Aayog) / 332-340/2022-23 dated
03/08/2022, verbally directed that unless
the selected candidate personally submits
his application (for issuing the appointment
letter) in the said regard and does not
establish contact, further action cannot be
taken because the candidate previously
selected for the post of Principal, Dr. Ajay
Kumar Singh, did not take charge even
after being given two opportunities to issue
the appointment letter and assume charge
and his candidature was cancelled. In view
of this fact, let the candidate submit his
application first. After this, he directed the
DIOS for comments. Since the selected
candidate did not submit any application
form to the college nor did he establishes
contact
with
the
District
Magistrate/Authorized Controller/College,
hence the appointment letter was not issued
698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by
the
Authorized
Controller/District
Magistrate.

7. That the recommendation letter,
application form and certification letter of
the selected Principal, Dr. Manoj Kumar
Rawat were sent to the college by e-mail of
Directorate
of
Higher
Education
on
03/08/2022, but the appointment letter was
not issued to the selected candidate Dr.
Manoj Kumar Rawat by the authorized
controller/manager as per the rules,
whereas he should have issued the
appointment letter within 21 days of the
order as per the rules."

6. It is in the context of the facts
noticed above that we are called upon to
adjudicate the legality of the transfer order
passed by the Director placing the appellant
at Meerut College, Meerut as also the
judgment of learned Single Judge in
interfering with such order.

7. We have also heard Sri Prabhakar
Awasthi for the appellant and Sri Ashok
Khare, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by
Sri Kartikeya Saran for the respondent-writ
petitioner, Sri Gagan Mehta, learned
counsel appearing for the Commission and
learned counsel for the State.

8. Sri Ashok Khare submits that the
Director was denuded of any jurisdiction
on 15.01.2024 to pass the order of
placement in favour of the present
appellant, inasmuch as the U.P. Higher
Education Act, 1980 was repealed and that
the power erstwhile available to the
Director under section 13(4) was not
available to him.

9. We have heard learned counsel for
the parties on this aspect of the matter
which is taken up first for determination.

10.
It
is
undisputed
that
the
Advertisement No. 49 of 2019 was issued
pursuant to which selection proceedings
were conducted by the U.P. Higher
Education Service Commission was under
the Higher Education Act, 1980. Section 13
of the Act would be relevant in order to
appreciate the contours of the jurisdiction
of Director in placing candidates in the
institution
concerned.
Section
13
is
reproduced herein below:

"13. (1) The Commission shall, as
soon as possible, after the notification of
vacancies to it under sub-section (3) of
section 12, hold interview (with or without
written examination) of the candidates and
send to the Director a list recommending
such number of names of candidates found
most suitable in each subject as may be, so
for as practicable, twenty-five per cent
more than the number of vacancies in that
subject such names shall be arranged in
order of merit shown in the interview, or in
the examination and interview if an
examination is held.

 (2)
The
list
sent
by
the
Commission shall be valid till the receipt
of a new list from the Commission.

(3) The Director shall having
due regard in the prescribed manner, to
the order of preference if any indicated by
the candidates under the second proviso to
subsection (4) of section 12, intimate to
the management the name of a candidate
from the list referred to in sub-section (1),
for being appointed in the vacancy
intimated under sub-section (2) of section
12.

 (4) Where a vacancy occurs due
to death, resignation or otherwise during
the period of validity of the list referred to
in sub-section (2), and such vacancy has
not been notified to the Commission under
5 All. Dr Manoj Kumar Rawat Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
699
sub-section (3) of section 12, the Director
may intimate to the management the name
of a candidate from such list for
appointment in such vacancy.

 (5) Notwithstanding anything in
the
preceding
provisions,
where
to
abolition of any post of teacher in any
college, services of the person substantively
appointed to such post is terminated, the
State Government may make suitable order
for his appointment in suitable vacancy,
whether notified under subsection (3) of
section 12 or not, in any other college, and
thereupon the Director shall intimate to the
management accordingly.

 (6) The Director shall send a
copy of the intimation made under subsection (3) or sub-section (4) or sub-section
(5) to the candidate concerned."

11. Sub-section (2) of Section 13
provides that the selection list sent by the
Commission shall be valid till receipt of a
new list from the Commission. Subsection (4) provides that where a vacancy
occurs due to death, resignation or
otherwise during the period of validity of
the list referred to in sub-section (2), and
such vacancy has not been notified to the
Commission under sub-section (3) of
section 12, the Director may intimate to the
management the name of a candidate from
such list for appointment in such vacancy.

12. The order of Director dated
15.01.2024 is apparently referable to
section 13(4) of the Act. The question for
our consideration, therefore, is as to
whether the power available with the
Director
under
section
13(4)
would
continue to be available with the officer
even after the repeal of the Act of 1980.
The State legislature while repealing Act of
1980 has enacted the U.P. Education
Service Selection Commission Act, 2023
(hereinafter referred to as "Act 2023"). The
Scheme under the new Act is somewhat
similar in the matter of preparation of select
list as well as recommending the names of
selected candidates for their respective
placement in the institution concerned.
Section 11 of the Act of 2023 is relevant
for our purposes and is reproduced
hereinunder:

"Section 11 (1) The Commission
shall, as soon as may be, after a vacancy is
notified under sub-section (1) of section 10,
conduct, wherever necessary, examinations
or interviews or conduct the examination
and interview of the candidates and
prepare a panel/list of those found most
suitable for appointment.

 (2) The panel referred to in subsection (1) shall be forwarded to the
prescribed officer or Authorized Officer
referred to in sub-section (1) of section 10
in such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) After the receipt of the panel
under sub-section (2), the prescribed
officer or Authorized Officer shall, in the
prescribed manner, intimate the Appointing
Authority of the names of the selected
candidates in respect of the vacancies
notified under sub-section (1) of section 10.

(4) The Appointing Authority
shall, within a period of thirty days from
the date of receipt of such information,
issue appointment letters to such selected
candidates and facilitate the selected
candidate to join the duties in the
prescribed manner.

(5)
Where
such
selected
candidate fails to join the post of a teacher
or instructor in such institution within the
time allowed in the appointment letter or
within
such
extended
time
as
the
Appointing Authority may allow in this
behalf, or where such candidate is
otherwise not available for appointment,
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Authorized Officer shall, on the
request of Management, intimate in the
prescribed manner, fresh name or names
from the panel/list forwarded by the
Commission under sub-section (2). Such
time limit shall be up to a maximum of
one year after the date of issuing of the
appointment letter.

(6)
If
the
Management/
Appointing
Authority
fails
to
issue
appointment letter to a selected candidate
on reasonable grounds (the Management/
Appointing Authority is to mention the
appropriate reason) then a panel of
remaining candidates from the list/panel of
candidates under sub-section (1) will be
made available to the Institute only once.
Still,
if
the
Management/Appointing
Authority fails to issue appointment letter
then the concerned post will be abolished
as per the prescribed method."

13. The provision aforesaid would
clearly show that where a selected
candidate fails to join the post of a teacher
in such institution within the time allowed
in the appointment letter or within such
extended time as the Appointing Authority
may allow in this behalf, or where such
candidate is otherwise not available for
appointment, the Authorized Officer shall,
on the request of Management, intimate in
the prescribed manner, fresh name or
names from the panel/list forwarded by the
Commission under sub-section (2).

14. Having carefully examining the
scheme under the Act of 2023, we find that
the power of the authorized officer under
the new enactment is limited to the steps
specified in sub-section (5) for filling up
the post if the selected candidate fails to
join. The power under sub-section (5) does
not include any power referable to section
13(4) of the previous Act. There is no
power in the new Act which allows the
authorized officer to recommend the name
from the select list if a substantive vacancy
on the post of principal comes into effect.

15. Undisputedly Dr. Sachchidanand
Sharma was selected and placed in the
Meerut College, Meerut as principal. He
worked for about 1 year and 1/2,
whereafter,
he
resigned.
With
the
resignation of Dr. Sachchidanand Sharma a
substantive vacancy on the post of principal
had come into existence. Such vacancy
once has arisen under the currency of the
new Act the only way in which such post
can be filled is by sending requisition to the
commission for making fresh appointment.
The power available to the Director under
the
previous
enactment,
particularly,
section 13(4) of the Act, 1980 would not be
available to be exercised after the new Act
of 2023 has come into effect.

16. Sri Gagan Mehta, learned counsel
appearing for Commission has invited our
attention to section 31(2) of the Act 2023 in
order to submit that powers of the Director
under the previous Act of 1980 are
protected. Section 31 of the new Act
which provides for repeal and savings is
reproduced hereinbelow:

"31. (1) The Uttar Pradesh
Higher Education Services Commission
Act, 1980, the Uttar Pradesh Secondary
Education Service Selection Board Act,
1982 and the Uttar Pradesh Education
Service Selection Commission Act, 2019
are hereby repealed.

 (2)
Notwithstanding
such
repeal, anything done or any action taken
under the Acts referred to in sub-section
(1) shall be deemed to have been done or
taken under this Act, as if the provisions
of this Act were in force at all material
times.
5 All. Dr. Sanjay Mittal Vs. Union Of India & Ors.
701

 (3) Save as otherwise provided in
this Act, the repeal of the Acts referred to
in sub-section (1) shall not have an adverse
effect on the general application of section
6 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses
Act, 1904 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 1904) in
relation to the enforcement of provisions."

17. A careful reading of sub-section
(2) would reveal that notwithstanding
repeal of the Act of 1980 anything done or
any action taken under the acts referred to
in sub-section (1) is to be deemed to have
been done or taken under the new Act and
for such purposes the new Act were to be
treated to have been in force at all material
times. Once we find that the new Act
contains no power with the Director to fill
up a substantive vacancy which has come
into existence later, to be filled from a
candidate
selected
in
an
earlier
advertisement, the action of the Director
would be without jurisdiction. This is
particularly so as the powers of the Director
under the previous Act would continue
under the new Act by virtue of section
31(2) of the Act of 2023 insofar as it is
not inconsistent with the Act. A power
which is not conferred upon the Director
during the currency of new Act cannot be
exercised by tracing the source of such
power from the previous Act, which has
already been repealed.

18. In view of the deliberations and
discussions held above, we hold that the
Director had no jurisdiction to pass the
order in favour of the appellant on
15.01.2024 and such order is, therefore,
held to be without jurisdiction. Though for
a different reason, but we ultimately find
ourselves to be in agreement with the
conclusion drawn by the learned Single
Judge for quashing the order of the
Director.

19. This appeal, consequently fails,
and is dismissed. No order is passed as to
costs.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 701
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 5151 of 2023

Dr. Sanjay Mittal ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Avneesh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Rohan Gupta, Sabhajeet Singh

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings -
IIT Kanpur Statutes, Statute 13(9)(b) -
Misconduct by Professor - Allegations of
disparaging
remarks
against
a
colleague
belonging to SC category and convening of an
unauthorized
faculty
meeting
questioning
appointment - Inquiry held, charges found
proved - Board of Governors imposed penalty of
withholding two increments without cumulative
effect for two years and debarment from
holding administrative responsibilities for three
years - Validity.

Held: The charges established derogated from
discipline and constituted service misconduct;
penalty of withholding increments is permissible
under Statute 13(9)(b)(ii). However, debarment
from holding administrative responsibilities for a
period of three years is not one of the penalties
enumerated under Statute 13(9)(b). The said
punishment is beyond the authority of the IIT,
manifestly illegal, and stands quashed. Penalty
of
withholding
two
increments
without
cumulative effect sustained.

Writ Petition partly allowed.