# Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 963
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-08-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43232 of 2011
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran, Ran Vijai Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-rajesh-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41997
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Sri Ashok Khare
Sri B.D. Pandey
Sri Salil Kumar Rai
Sri Sudhanshu Pandey
C.S.C.

Gorakhpur
University-U.P.
State
Universities Act Statutes 18-9-Appeal
against
determination
of
senioritydecided
without
affording
any
opportunity to the effected petitioner
without disclosing any reason disturbed
the finding of the Dean of the Facultyignoring the provision of statute 18.07 if
date of joining are same-person being
senior in age shall be treated as seniorheld-order entails civil consequences-can
not be passed without following the
principle
of
Natural
Justice-order
impugned
quashed
with
necessary
direction to the executive council.

Held: Para 15

In the present case, nothing of this kind
has
been
done.
Neither
has
an
opportunity been given to the petitioner
before the Executive Council in its
meeting held on 12.6.2011 nor any
reasons have been given for disagreeing
with
the
order
of
the
Seniority
Committee.
As
such,
the
order/resolution no. 39 of the Executive
Council passed on 12.6.2011 deserves to
be quashed.
Case law discussed:
1952 SCR 284; (1978) 1 SCC 248; (1978) 1
SCC 405; 1993 SCC 259

## Text

2 All] Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh V. State of U.P. and others

963

11. In view of the above, the writ
petition
fails
and
is
accordingly,
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.08.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43232 of 2011

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shailendra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri B.D. Pandey
Sri Salil Kumar Rai
Sri Sudhanshu Pandey
C.S.C.

Gorakhpur
University-U.P.
State
Universities Act Statutes 18-9-Appeal
against
determination
of
senioritydecided
without
affording
any
opportunity to the effected petitioner
without disclosing any reason disturbed
the finding of the Dean of the Facultyignoring the provision of statute 18.07 if
date of joining are same-person being
senior in age shall be treated as seniorheld-order entails civil consequences-can
not be passed without following the
principle
of
Natural
Justice-order
impugned
quashed
with
necessary
direction to the executive council.

Held: Para 15

In the present case, nothing of this kind
has
been
done.
Neither
has
an
opportunity been given to the petitioner
before the Executive Council in its
meeting held on 12.6.2011 nor any
reasons have been given for disagreeing
with
the
order
of
the
Seniority
Committee.
As
such,
the
order/resolution no. 39 of the Executive
Council passed on 12.6.2011 deserves to
be quashed.
Case law discussed:
1952 SCR 284; (1978) 1 SCC 248; (1978) 1
SCC 405; 1993 SCC 259

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shailendra, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner as well
as learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the State respondent no.1, Sri B.D. Pandey,
learned counsel for the respondents no. 2
and 3 and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior
Counsel along with Sri Salil Kumar Rai,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
respondent no. 4-Smt. Vinita Pathak and
have perused the record.

2.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents have categorically stated that
this writ petition may be disposed of
finally at the admission stage without
calling for a counter affidavit. As such,
with consent of learned counsel for the
parties, this writ petition is being disposed
of finally at the admission stage.

3. The brief facts of this case are that
the petitioner-Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh as
well as respondent no. 4-Dr. Smt. Vinita
Pathak were given substantive appointment
in the Political Science department of the
University by the decision of the Executive
Council dated 1.12.1996. Besides other
appointments,
there
were
three
appointments made in the Political Science
department and in the list of appointees,
the name of the respondent no. 4 was
shown at serial no. 1 and that of the
petitioner at serial no. 3. Thereafter, in the
964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

year 1997, as per the supplementary
seniority list published on 31.12.1997, the
name of the petitioner was shown at serial
no. 49 and that of the respondent no. 4 at
serial no. 52 on the ground that though
both of them had joined their services on
the same day but since the petitioner was
senior in age than the respondent no. 4, the
petitioner would be treated senior to the
respondent no. 4. Sri Salil Kumar Rai,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
respondents however states that no such
seniority list was ever published or
circulated
by
the
Registrar
of
the
University.

4. It is not disputed that a tentative
seniority list was thereafter published on
23.7.2007, on which objections were
invited. In the said tentative seniority list,
the name of the petitioner finds place at
serial no. 62 and that of the respondent no.
4 at serial no. 65. Then again on 6.10.2010,
another
tentative
seniority
list
was
published, in which again the petitioner
was shown senior to the respondent no. 4.
His name being placed at serial no. 26 and
that of the respondent no. 4 at serial no. 29.
Objections were again invited on the said
tentative seniority list. It is stated that the
respondent no. 4 filed objections to both
the tentative seniority list. By means of the
order dated 16.1.20011 passed by the
Seniority Committee comprising of Vice
Chancellor, Dean of Faculty of Law and
Dean of Faculty of Commerce, the matter
was decided in favour of the petitioner and
considering the provisions of Statute 18.07
of the statutes of the University and the
fact that the petitioner as well as the
respondent no. 4 having been appointed on
the same day and the petitioner being the
senior in age, the petitioner was treated as
senior to the respondent no. 4. Challenging
the said order, the respondent no. 4 filed an
appeal before the Executive Council under
Clause 18.09 of the statutes of the
University. The appeal of the respondent
no. 4 was decided by the Executive
Council in its meeting held on 12.6.2011,
and the Executive Council vide resolution
no. 39 maintained the list determined in its
meeting
dated
1.12.1996
and
the
respondent no. 4 was treated as senior to
the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order of
the Executive Council, the Registrar has
passed the order dated 1.7.2011 treating
the respondent no. 4 as senior to the
petitioner. Aggrieved by the resolution no.
39 of the Executive Council dated
12.6.2011 and the order of the Registrar of
the University dated 1.7.2011, this writ
petition has been filed.

5. We have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.

6. Though it has been argued by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
resolution of the Executive Council dated
1.12.96 did not fix any inter se seniority of
the petitioner and respondent no. 4, we are
not inclined to go into this question, in
view of the order which we propose to
pass.

7. The tentative seniority list was
issued by the University lastly on
16.10.2011, in which the name of the
petitioner was admittedly placed as senior
to the respondent no. 4, objections were
filed, which were decided by the Seniority
Committee on 16.1.2011. Clause 18.09 of
the statues of the University, which relates
to constitution of Seniority Committee and
filing of appeal against decision of
Seniority Committee, reads as under:

"18.09 (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall
from time to tile constitute one or more
2 All] Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh V. State of U.P. and others

965
seniority committees consisting of himself
as Chairman and two Deans of Faculties
to be nominated by the Chancellor.

Provided that the Dean of the Faculty
to which the teachers, (whose seniority is
in dispute) belong shall not be a member of
the relative Seniority Committee.

(2) Every dispute about the seniority
of a teacher of the University shall be
referred to the Seniority Committee which
shall decide the same giving reasons for
the decision.

(3) Any teacher aggrieved with the
decision of the Seniority Committee may
prefer an appeal to the Executive Council
within sixty days from the date of
communication of such decision to the
teacher concerned. If the Executive council
disagrees with the Committee, it shall give
reasons for such disagreement."

8. Sub-clause (3) of Clause 18.09 of
the statues speaks about that reasons are to
be recorded by the Executive Council in
case if the Executive Council disagrees
with the decision of the Seniority
Committee, which is also to be a reasoned
order as per sub-clause (2).

9. In the present case, the Seniority
Committee had given its detailed reasons
for fixing the seniority and placing the
petitioner as senior to the respondent no. 4
and has also referred Clause 18.07 of the
statutes of the University, which reads as
under:-

"18.07.
Where
more
than
one
teachers are entitled to count the same
length of continuous service and their
relative seniority cannot be determined in
accordance with any of the foregoing
provisions, then the seniority of such
teachers shall be determined on the basis
of seniority in age.

10. A perusal of resolution no. 39
would go to show that the only reason
given by the Executive Council in its order
passed
on
12.6.2011
was
that
the
representation (appeal) of the respondent
no. 4 was considered and it was decided
that the seniority as determined by the
Executive Council in its meeting held on
1.12.1996 shall be applicable. It clearly
does not meet the reasons given by the
Seniority Committee for placing the
petitioner as senior to the respondent no. 4.
It also does not take note of the fact that in
all tentative seniority list, which were
published by the University, the petitioner
had always been placed senior to the
respondent no. 4, nor does it take into
consideration Clause 18.07 of the statutes
of the University.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
thus submits that the order of the Executive
Council, being without any valid reason
and
without
considering
the
grounds/reasons given by the Seniority
Committee, would be illegal and liable to
the set aside. It is also submitted that as the
appeal is provided under the statutes, it
would be obligatory on the part of the
appellate authority to give an opportunity
to the aggrieved party before taking a final
decision.

12. The said submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner has force.
When an appellate authority is obliged in
law to give reasons for disagreeing with
the decision taken, which is appealed
against, opportunity should be given to the
party in whose favour the order has been
passed. This would be necessary so as to
966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

ensure that the ingredients of natural
justice are satisfied. In case if the appellate
authority decides the matter and upsets the
order appealed against, the interest of the
party (which is the petitioner in the present
case) would be adversely affected without
even having a chance to present his case
before the appellate authority.

13. It is well settled that an order
which involves civil consequences must be
just, fair, reasonable, unarbitrary and
impartial and should be in compliance with
the principles of natural justice. The main
aim of the principle of natural justice is to
secure justice or to put it negatively to
prevent miscarriage of the justice vide
State of W.B. vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952
SCR 284; Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of
India, (1978) 1 SCC 248; Mohinder Singh
Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner,
(1978) 1 SCC 405 and D.K.Yadav vs.
J.M.A. Industries Ltd. reported in 1993
SCC 259;

14. These decisions have been
followed in numerous cases decided
thereafter which need not be detailed as
this is the established principle of law that
even an administrative order which leads
to civil consequences must be passed in
conformity with the rules of natural justice.

15. In the present case, if the decision
of the Seniority Committee was to be
reversed by the Executive Council, some
opportunity (which need not of personal
hearing) ought to have been given by the
Executive Council to the petitioner. The
least that could have been done was that
the copy of the representation/appeal filed
by the respondent no. 4 should have been
provided to the petitioner giving him
opportunity to file his written objection
and the Executive Council could have then
decide the matter after considering the
grounds taken in the reply. In case if the
Executive Council disagrees with the
decision of the Seniority Committee, it
ought
to
give
reasons
for
such
disagreement. In the present case, nothing
of this kind has been done. Neither has an
opportunity been given to the petitioner
before the Executive Council in its meeting
held on 12.6.2011 nor any reasons have
been given for disagreeing with the order
of the Seniority Committee. As such, the
order/resolution no. 39 of the Executive
Council passed on 12.6.2011 deserves to
be quashed.

16. Accordingly, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order/resolution no. 39 of the Executive
Council passed on 12.6.2011 as well as the
consequential order dated 1.7.2011 passed
by the Registrar of the University are
hereby quashed. The Executive Council
shall decide the appeal of the respondent
no. 4, in accordance with law and in the
light
of
the
observations
made
hereinabove.
The
Registrar
of
the
University shall make every endeavour to
ensure that the appeal of the respondent no.
4 is placed and decided in light of the
observation made hereinabove in the next
meeting of the Executive Council and in
case if the same is not possible, then in the
subsequent meeting held thereafter.

17. There shall be no order as to
costs.
---------
2 All] Krishna Prasad and another V. State of U.P. and others

967
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43398 of 2011

Krishna Prasad and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Bijendra Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P.
Regularization
of
Daily
Wags
Appointment on Group D Post Rules
2001-Rule
4(a)
(b)-regularization
of
Daily Wagers working prior to 1991considering Globalization and Economic
growth-engagement of Daily Wages,
contractual
employees-become
well
recognized system-there can not be any
prohibition-but should be in accordance
with law-0considering latest views of the
Apex
Court-guide
lines
given
for
Regularization.

Held: Para 12

In the present scenario of Globalisation
and Economic growth, the execution of
work
by
engaging
the
persons
on
contractual basis, daily basis and part
time basis has become well recognised
system
and
its
results
are
more
productive, efficient and economical.
Having regard to the financial aspects
the
Central
Government,
State
Government and their instrumentalities
have right to engage daily wagers on the
agreed wages, on contractual basis,
adhoc and temporary basis and there is
no prohibition in the Constitution or
under any law of the land. However,
their
appointment
should
be
in
accordance to law.
Case law discussed:
(2006) 4 SCC 44; JT 2009 (4) SC 577; 2006
(4) SCC-1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The petitioners were working as
daily wagers prior to June, 1991. The
petitioners claim their regularization of
service under the U.P. Regularisation of
Daily Wages Appointment on Group D
Post Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to
as the 'Rules 2001').

3. The contention of the petitioners
is that they fulfill all the conditions of the
Rules 2001 and are eligible to be
regularized. The names of the petitioners
have
not
been
considered
for
regularization because they are getting the
minimum of pay scale as per order of this
Court, in view of the Circular dated
24.6.20011.

4. I have considered the circular
dated 24.06.2011. In my view, the
regularization of the petitioners, who are
working as daily wagers, can not be
denied merely on the ground that the
petitioners are getting minimum of pay
scale on the basis of the order passed by
this Court or otherwise, in case, if the
petitioners fulfil all the requirements of
the Rules 2001. There is nothing in the
Rules 2001 which debars those Daily
Wagers who are getting minimum of pay
scale. It is settled principle of law that the
circular cannot over-ride the rules. The
circular dated 24.06.2011 is clarified as
above. The claim of the petitioners for
regularisation is to be considered strictly
in accordance to rules. However, while