# Dr. Suman Jain v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 877
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-07
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 14995 of 2024
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-suman-jain-v-u-o-i-ors-54565
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Selection
-
The
contention
that
for
the
purpose
of
selection committee there must be three
Experts of Palaeography has no legal
basis, since consideration for promotion
was for the post of Senior Professor
(Academic
Level
15)
at
AIHC
and
Archaeology and not for any specific topic
such as Palaeography. (Para 9)

It is the case of the petitioner that when she
faced the Selection Committee, she came to
know that three experts being its members were
not the experts of her subject i.e. Paleography,
therefore, according to her, the Selection
Committee was not constituted in terms of
above referred regulation, therefore, she has
approached this Court. (Para 4)

Petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer in
Palaeography in Department of AIHC and
Archaeology
under
a
Special
Assistant
Programme. Later on, she was promoted on the
post
of
Lecturer
(Senior
Scale)
in
the
Department of AIHC & Archaeology and in
similar manner she was promoted as a Reader,
Associate Professor, and Professor (Stage-V) in
the Department of AIHC and Archaeology and
not in a specific subject i.e. Palaeography. (Para
9)

In the curriculum of B.A. (Hons.) in AIHC and
Archaeology, there is one core subject i.e.
'Ancient Indian Palaeography and Epigraphy' in
its 6th Semester, therefore, in the entire course,
Palaeography is one of the core subject out of
20 core subjects. In the post graduation, out of
six
specialised
courses
only
one
is
of
'Palaeography and Epigraphy'. (Para 10, 11)

B. The petitioner has not come up with a
case that she is only taking classes in
subject Palaeography. (Para 12)

C. There is no doubt about petitioner's
expertise on subject Palaeography, but
such expertise does not require that in the
Selection Committee, three experts ought
to be in subject of Palaeography only. In
Clause
5
(IV)(iii)
of
notification
dated
18.07.2018 for Experts it is provided that
minimum of 10 years experience in the
subject/field, which has a wide connotation and
could not be restricted as contended by the
petitioner. All the three experts are specialized
in the field of Archaeology, which includes many
topics or subjects including 'Palaeography'.
(Para 13, 14)

D. In the Website of BHU, there are
details of petitioner, that she is working
in the Department of Ancient Indian
History, Culture and Archaeology. No
mention is made in respect of subject of
Palaeography, therefore, argument in
this respect has no ground. The three
Experts were qualified to be part of Selection
Committee and any objection to it is rejected.
(Para 15)
878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent distinguished:

## Text

3 All. Dr. Suman Jain Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
877
evidence already tendered in the earlier
enquiry proceedings.

16. All entitlements claimed by the
petitioner shall be determined after the final
order is passed in pursuance of this
judgment.

17. The writ petition is allowed to
the extent indicated above.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 877
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 14995 of 2024

Dr. Suman Jain ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Siddharth Khare, Sr. Adv.

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Hem Pratap Singh, Prem Narayan
Rai, Rahul Agarwal

A.
Service
Law
-
Selection
-
The
contention
that
for
the
purpose
of
selection committee there must be three
Experts of Palaeography has no legal
basis, since consideration for promotion
was for the post of Senior Professor
(Academic
Level
15)
at
AIHC
and
Archaeology and not for any specific topic
such as Palaeography. (Para 9)

It is the case of the petitioner that when she
faced the Selection Committee, she came to
know that three experts being its members were
not the experts of her subject i.e. Paleography,
therefore, according to her, the Selection
Committee was not constituted in terms of
above referred regulation, therefore, she has
approached this Court. (Para 4)

Petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer in
Palaeography in Department of AIHC and
Archaeology
under
a
Special
Assistant
Programme. Later on, she was promoted on the
post
of
Lecturer
(Senior
Scale)
in
the
Department of AIHC & Archaeology and in
similar manner she was promoted as a Reader,
Associate Professor, and Professor (Stage-V) in
the Department of AIHC and Archaeology and
not in a specific subject i.e. Palaeography. (Para
9)

In the curriculum of B.A. (Hons.) in AIHC and
Archaeology, there is one core subject i.e.
'Ancient Indian Palaeography and Epigraphy' in
its 6th Semester, therefore, in the entire course,
Palaeography is one of the core subject out of
20 core subjects. In the post graduation, out of
six
specialised
courses
only
one
is
of
'Palaeography and Epigraphy'. (Para 10, 11)

B. The petitioner has not come up with a
case that she is only taking classes in
subject Palaeography. (Para 12)

C. There is no doubt about petitioner's
expertise on subject Palaeography, but
such expertise does not require that in the
Selection Committee, three experts ought
to be in subject of Palaeography only. In
Clause
5
(IV)(iii)
of
notification
dated
18.07.2018 for Experts it is provided that
minimum of 10 years experience in the
subject/field, which has a wide connotation and
could not be restricted as contended by the
petitioner. All the three experts are specialized
in the field of Archaeology, which includes many
topics or subjects including 'Palaeography'.
(Para 13, 14)

D. In the Website of BHU, there are
details of petitioner, that she is working
in the Department of Ancient Indian
History, Culture and Archaeology. No
mention is made in respect of subject of
Palaeography, therefore, argument in
this respect has no ground. The three
Experts were qualified to be part of Selection
Committee and any objection to it is rejected.
(Para 15)
878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent distinguished:

1.
Monika
Bansal
Vs
U.O.I.
&
ors.,
2024:AHC:190635 (Para 6, 16)

2. Dipanwita Singha Roy Vs U.O.I. & ors., Writ-A
No. 4884 of 2024 (Para 6, 16)

3. Triloki Nath Singh Vs Bhagwan Din Misra &
ors., AIR 1990 SC 2063 (Para 6, 16)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kauntey
Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and
Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for
respondent-University.

2. Petitioner before this Court is
working at the respondent University
namely Banaras Hindu University since
1996 and has faced a Selection Committee
for the post of Senior Professor (Academic
Level 15) in the Department of Ancient
Indian
History
Culture
(AIHC)
and
Archaeology under Career Advancement
Scheme for the first time.

3. The petitioner was earlier appointed
on the post of Lecturer in Palaeography in
Department of AIHC and Archaeology under
a 'Special Assistant Programme'. Later on,
she was promoted on the post of Lecturer
(Senior Scale) in the Department of AIHC &
Archaeology and in similar manner she was
promoted as a Reader, Associate Professor,
and Professor (Stage-V) in the Department of
AIHC and Archaeology and now in terms of
a Notification dated 18.7.2018 of the
University Grants Commission, she has to
face a selection committee, constituted for the
post of Senior Professor (Academic Level 15)
in terms of Clause 5.1 (iv) of said
notification.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that
when she faced the Selection Committee, she
came to know that three experts being its
members were not the experts of her subject
i.e. Paleography, therefore, according to her,
the Selection Committee was not constituted
in terms of above referred regulation,
therefore, she has approached this Court. The
Constitution of Selection Committee for the
post of promotion of post of Senior Professor
in the University is reproduced hereinafter:

"IV. Senior Professor

(a) The selection Committee for the
post of Senior Professor in the University
shall consist of the following persons:

I. Vice Chancellor who shall be the
Chairperson of the Committee.

 II. An academician not below the
rank of Senior Professor/Professor with
minimum ten years experience who is the
nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, wherever
applicable.

 III. Three experts not below the
rank of Senior Professor/Professor with a
minimum of ten years experience in the
subject/field concerned nominated by the
Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of names
approved by the relevant statutory body of
the University.

 IV. Dean(not below the rank of
Senior Professor/Professor with minimum
ten years experience) of the faculty,
wherever applicable.

 V. Head/Chairperson (not below
the rank of Senior Professor/Professor with
3 All. Dr. Suman Jain Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
879
minimum ten years experience) or Senior
most Professor (not below the rank of
Senior
Professor/Professor,
with
a
minimum of ten years' experience) of the
Department/School

 VI. An academician (not below
the rank of a Senior Professor/Professor
with minimum ten years experience)
representing SC/ST/OBC/Minority /Women
/ Differently-abled categories, if any of
candidates representing these categories is
the applicant, to be nominated by the Vice
Chancellor, if any of the above members of
the selection committee do not belong to
that category.

 (b) Four members, including two
outside subject experts, shall constitute the
quorum."

5. For reference prayers sought in
this
Writ
Petition
are
reproduced
hereinafter:-

 "(i) a writ, order or direction of a
suitable nature commanding the respondent
to produce the recommendations of the
selection committee which met on 29.07.2024
for promotion as Senior Professor (Academic
Level 15) in the Department of Ancient
Indian History, Culture & Archeology,
Banaras Hindu University and to quash the
same.

 (ii) a writ, order or direction of a
suitable nature restraining the respondent
from undertaking any proceedings in
pursuance to the recommendation of
selection
committee
which
met
on
29.07.2024, for promotion as Senior
Professor
(Academic
Level
15),
Department of Ancient Indian History,
Culture & Archeology, Banaras Hindu
University, Varanasi.
 (iii) a writ, order or direction of a
suitable
nature
commanding
the
respondent to re-convene a meeting of the
selection committee for consideration of the
petitioner for promotion as Sr. Professor
Academic Level 15 after including therein
external experts in the subject/field of
Paleography within a period to be specified
by this Hon'ble court.

 (iv) a writ, order or direction in
the nature of which this Hon'ble court may
deem
fit
and
proper
under
the
circumstances of the case.

 (v) award cost to the humble
petitioner throughout of the present writ
petition."

6.
Learned
Senior
Counsel
appearing on behalf of petitioner refers
paragraph no.22 of the Writ Petition,
wherein details of three Experts are
mentioned, that they were not expert in the
subject
of
Palaeography.
He
further
submitted that there are two co-ordinate
Bench judgments i.e. Writ-A No. 12176 of
2024 Dr. Monika Bansal Vs. Union of
India
&
Ors,
Neutral
Citation
No:2024:AHC:190635
and
Writ-A
No.4884 of 2024, Dr.Dipanwita Singha
Roy Vs. Union of India & 5 Ors, Neutral
Citation No.2025:AHC:21621 that such
issue was considered about the expertise of
experts and respective Special Appeals are
pending before Division Bench of this
Court and they are distinguishable on facts.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for
the respondent University has placed
reliance on aforesaid two judgments and
submitted that the issue has already been
settled and there is no reason for this Court
to take any contrary view. It was held in
Dr. Monika Bansal (Supra) that objection
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to
the
Constitution
of
a
Selection
Committee on ground that Experts were not
from discipline of Periodontology was
rejected as experts were Dentists Experts
from prestigious Institutions.

8.
In
order
to
appreciate
contentions of learned Senior Counsel and
in order to scrutinize as to whether details
disclosed in regard to earlier promotions of
the petitioner were correct or it was half
baked truth, therefore, I have checked the
official
website
of
Banaras
Hindu
University as well as documents annexed
along with present Writ Petition and
following
facts
were
revealed
being
mentioned therein in a simple language,
which does not require knowledge of
Palaeography.

9. Correct position of facts are that
petitioner was initially appointed as a
Lecturer in Palaeography in Department of
AIHC and Archaeology under a Special
Assistant Programme. Later on, she was
promoted on the post of Lecturer (Senior
Scale) in the Department of AIHC &
Archaeology and in similar manner she was
promoted as a Reader, Associate Professor,
and Professor (Stage-V) in the Department
of AIHC and Archaeology and not in a
specific
subject
i.e.
Palaeography,
therefore, the contention that for the
purpose of selection committee there must
be three Experts of Palaeography has no
legal
basis,
since
consideration
for
promotion was for the post of Senior
Professor (Academic Level 15) at AIHC
and Archaeology and not for any specific
topic such as Palaeography.

10. I have also perused the
curriculum of B.A. (Hons.) in AIHC and
Archaeology and in its 6th Semester there
is one core subject i.e. 'Ancient Indian
Palaeography and Epigraphy', therefore, in
the entire course, Palaeography is one of
the core subject out of 20 core subjects.

11. In the post graduation, out of
six specialised courses only one is of
'Palaeography and Epigraphy'.

12. The petitioner has not come up
with a case that she is only tasking classes
in subject Palaeography.

13. As referred in the Writ Petition
all the three experts are specialized in the
field of Archaeology, which includes many
topics or subjects including 'Palaeography'.

14. Court is not making any doubt
so far as petitioner's expertise on subject
Palaeography is concerned, but such
expertise does not require that in the
Selection Committee, three experts ought
to be in subject of Palaeography only. In
Clause 5 (IV)(iii) of notification dated
18.07.2018 for Experts it is provided that
minimum of 10 years experience in the
subject/field, which has a wide connotation
and could not be restricted as contended by
the petitioner. The outcome of Selection
Process is also not on record.

15. In the Website of Banaras
Hindu University, there are details of
petitioner, that she is working in the in
Department of Ancient Indian History,
Culture and Archaeology. No mention is
made in respect of subject of Palaeography,
therefore, argument in this respect has no
ground. The three Experts were qualified to
be part of Selection Committee and any
objection to it is rejected.

16. The Court also takes note of
Dr. Monika Bansal (Supra), Dr. Dipanwita
Singha Roy (Supra) and Dr. Trilok Nath
3 All. Saurabh Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
881
Singh Vs. Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra
& Oths. (1990) 4 SCC 510 and it would not
be helpful to petitioner's case rather they
are against her.

17. In the aforesaid circumstances,
there is no ground to grant relief as sought
in the present Writ Petition, accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 881
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ - A No. 16327 of 2022

Saurabh Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Niraj Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Vivek Ratan Agarwal

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - The penalty imposed upon
the petitioner's father cannot be invoked
to
decline
his
application
for
the
appointment on compassionate grounds.
In the instant case the major penalty stood
effaced two years after its imposition, and its
adverse impact did not continue subsequent to
the promotion of the petitioner's father. (Para 6)

As per the impugned order the petitioner's claim
for appointment on compassionate ground have
been invalidated on the footing of provisions of
the Scheme of appointment on compassionate
ground, which provides that Committee will be
authorised
to
decline
all
requests
for
compassionate appointment/ex-gratia payment
in cases where major penalty was imposed on
the ex-employee while in service, and/or where
disciplinary action which was pending at the
time of death of the ex-employee would have
resulted in imposition of major penalty. (Para 4)

The aforesaid disqualification will attach to an
employee against whom major penalty was
imposed and the remains in the record at the
time of his death. (Para 5)

Impugned order dated 03.03.2021 is set
aside. Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

Heard Sri Niraj Tiwari, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek
Ratan Agrawal, learned counsel for the
respondents.

1. By the impugned order dated
03.03.2021 the claim of the petitioner for
grant of appointment on compassionate
ground has been declined. The impugned
order speaks thus:-

"With
reference
to
your
application on the captioned subject, we
have to inform you that the matter was
placed before the competent authority and
in terms of the Government of India
guidelines and as per the Scheme, your
request for compassionate appointment has
not been considered favourably by the
Bank considering the unsatisfactory service
record of Achhale of in terms of the
Scheme."

2. A major penalty was imposed
upon his father for a period of two years
by order dated 31.05.2012. After the
expiry of the aforesaid period the
petitioner's father was granted promotion
to the post of Manager of Union of India,
Branch Collectrate, District Mau, U.P.
Thereafter, he was further promoted as
Deputy Branch Head at Branch Amiliya,
District Rewa (U.P.).