# Dr. (Mrs.) Kavita Srivastava v. The Principal Secretary Higher Education, U.P

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 134
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-02-11
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19399 of 2002
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Krishna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-mrs-kavita-srivastava-v-the-principal-secretary-higher-education-u-p-39898
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 14- writ of
Mandamus-Petitioner earlier worked as
lecturer in other state- represented her
case for adding the period of service
reheard
in
other
state-G.O.
dated
30.6.92
and
19.2.96
provides
such
benefit relied in other similar case of Dr.
Gaur- petition held entitled for same
treatment.

Held- Para 6 and 7
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Dr. (Mrs.) Kavita Srivastava V. The Principal Secretary Higher Education, U.P. 135
We
have
perused
the
order
dated
19.2.1996
Annexure
4
to
the
writ
petition in the case of Dr. Gaur and we
find that Dr. Gaur has been given the
same benefit being claimed by the
petitioner in this case. We cannot see
how the respondents can discriminate
against the petitioner when a similar
benefit has been given to Dr. Gaur. Any
such discrimination will violate Article 14
of the Constitution.

For
the
reasons
given
above,
this
petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated
10.8.2001
is
quashed.
A
mandamus is issued to the respondent to
add the service of the petitioner in
Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa
to her present service and give all
consequential benefits.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
9. In our opinion when it was
proposed
by
the
Committee
of
Management to supersede the senior most
teacher,
it
was
incumbent
on
the
Committee of Management to give show
cause notice to the senior most teacher
stating therein that there are some serious
allegations against him and, therefore, it
was proposed to supersede him/her and
asking him/her to show cause within a
specified period, why this action should
not be taken, vide Tribhuwan Nath Misra
vs. District Inspector of Schools 1992
ESC 563. No doubt, this show cause
notice need not be followed by an
elaborate departmental enquiry in which
oral hearing is given, including an
opportunity of examination and crossexamination. The show cause notice can
merely make allegations against the
petitioner as to why he is proposed to be
superseded and give him a short period of
time, say of one week, to reply to the
show cause notice, and after receiving the
reply or expiry of the period for reply, the
management can order super session of
the senior most teacher after giving in
brief the reasons for doing so (which need
not be elaborate reasons as contained in
the judgment of a court of law).

In our opinion, this would avoid
arbitrariness and would be compliance of
the principles of natural justice. Fairness
demands that a person should know why
some action is being taken against him.
Since ordinarily the senior most teacher
has a right to be appointed as Principal, he
must at least know why the action is being
taken against him and he must be given a
show cause notice and opportunity of
hearing (which need not be personal
hearing) before taking the action.

10. Since no such notice was given
to the petitioner in the present case before
passing the impugned order, we quash the
order dated 18.12.2000 (Annexure 4 to
the writ petition) removing the petitioner
from the post of Principal of the
Institution and appointing Dr. Neeraj
Garg as officiating Principal and we direct
that the petitioner be appointed as
officiating Principal of the Institution
forthwith, till regular selection

The petition is allowed. No order as
to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.2.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19399 of 2002

Dr. (Mrs.) Kavita Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
The
Principal
Secretary
Higher
Education, U.P.

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Srivastava
Sri A.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 14- writ of
Mandamus-Petitioner earlier worked as
lecturer in other state- represented her
case for adding the period of service
reheard
in
other
state-G.O.
dated
30.6.92
and
19.2.96
provides
such
benefit relied in other similar case of Dr.
Gaur- petition held entitled for same
treatment.

Held- Para 6 and 7
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Dr. (Mrs.) Kavita Srivastava V. The Principal Secretary Higher Education, U.P. 135
We
have
perused
the
order
dated
19.2.1996
Annexure
4
to
the
writ
petition in the case of Dr. Gaur and we
find that Dr. Gaur has been given the
same benefit being claimed by the
petitioner in this case. We cannot see
how the respondents can discriminate
against the petitioner when a similar
benefit has been given to Dr. Gaur. Any
such discrimination will violate Article 14
of the Constitution.

For
the
reasons
given
above,
this
petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated
10.8.2001
is
quashed.
A
mandamus is issued to the respondent to
add the service of the petitioner in
Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa
to her present service and give all
consequential benefits.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for quashing the impugned order dated
10.8.2001 Annexure 1 to the writ petition
and for a mandamus directing the
respondent to add the earlier service of
the petitioner rendered in Awadhesh
Pratap Singh University Rewa to the
present service of the petitioner in
Kulbhaskar Asharam Degree College,
Allahabad.

2. In this case on 10.5.2002 learned
Standing
Counsel
was
granted one
month's time to file counter affidavit but
as yet no counter affidavit has been filed.
We, therefore, treat the allegations in the
writ petition to be correct.

3. We have heard learned counsel
for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel.

4. The petitioner is working as
lecturer in Mathematics in Kulbhaskar
Ashram Degree College, Allahabad which
is affiliated to Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj
Kanpur University. The petitioner had
worked as lecturer in Mathematics in
Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa
from 20.1.1994 to 3.4.1996 after which
she joined as lecturer in Kulbhaskar
Ashram Degree College, Allahabad on
4.4.1996. True copy of the appointment
orders of both the Colleges are Annexure
5 to the writ petition. The petitioner has
been
confirmed
as
lecturer
in
Mathematics vide order dated 3.6.1997
vide Annexure 8 to the writ petition. She
has claimed that her service in Awadhesh
Pratap Singh University, Rewa should be
added to her service in Kulbhaskar
Ashram Degree College, Allahabad. She
made several representations in this
connection vide Annexure 12 and 13 to
the writ petition. The petitioner has relied
on the Government order dated 30.6.1992
and 19.2.1996 which provide for adding
of the prior service rendered outside the
State. True copy of the representations
dated 30.11.1999 along with relevant
Government orders are Annexure 9 to the
writ petition. The petitioner relied on the
decision of the Supreme Court in
Sharadendu
Bhushan
vs.
Nagpur
University 1987 (supp) SCC 5 in which
the prior service of a lecturer was added
to the present employment even though
there was a break of two years in
between. The petitioner made several
more representations vide Annexure 10 to
the writ petition. The Director of Higher
Education made a recommendation dated
19.7.2000 in petitioner's favour vide
Annexure 11 to the writ petition. The
petitioner had also filed writ petition no.
12647 of 2001 in this Court which was
disposed of with the direction that her
representation be decided within two
months. She sent reminder dated 9.5.2001
vide Annexure 13 to the writ petition.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Ultimately the impugned order dated
10.8.2001 was passed rejecting the claim
of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner has referred to the
case of Jagdish Prasad Gaur, lecturer in
Commerce in I.P. College, Bulandshahr in
which Dr. Gaur was granted the same
benefit being claimed by the petitioner
vide Annexure 4 to the writ petition.

6. We have perused the order dated
19.2.1996 Annexure 4 to the writ petition
in the case of Dr. Gaur and we find that
Dr. Gaur has been given the same benefit
being claimed by the petitioner in this
case. We cannot see how the respondents
can discriminate against the petitioner
when a similar benefit has been given to
Dr. Gaur. Any such discrimination will
violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

7. For the reasons given above, this
petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 10.8.2001 is quashed. A mandamus
is issued to the respondent to add the
service of the petitioner in Awadhesh
Pratap Singh University, Rewa to her
present service and give all consequential
benefits.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.2.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9940 of 2001

Narendra Kumar Tripathi
...Petitioner
Versus
The
Secretary,
Minor
Irrigation
Department, Lucknow ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Srivastava
Sri T.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Seniority- Petitioner initially appointed
on
18.1.83
on
work
charge
basis-
regularised
on
14.12.89-
Rural
Engineering Services (Group B) 1993
came into force on 10.6.93- hence the
seniority would be counted from the date
of initial appointment e.g. 18.1.83.

Held- Para 7
In our opinion this decision squarely
applies to the facts of the present case.
Admittedly the petitioner was appointed
as Assistant Engineer on 18.1.83 when
the Service Rules 1993 had not come
into
force.
Subsequently
he
was
confirmed also. It is settled law that
seniority is to be counted from the date
of continuous officiating on the post in
view of the above decision of the
Supreme Court.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1960 SC 1607

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
against
the
impugned
order
dated