# Dr. Vijay Bahadur Jaiswal & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 249
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-09
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 14077 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-vijay-bahadur-jaiswal-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52826
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

12 All. Dr. Vijay Bahadur Jaiswal & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
249
to
take
a
fresh
decision,
on
the
proposal/recommendation
of
the
Committee
of
Management,
strictly
adhering to the provisions of law and
affording
opportunity
of
hearing
to
Committee of Management, within the
period of six weeks, from the date a
certified copy of this order is produced
before him.

29. With the aforesaid observations,
the instant writ petition is hereby allowed.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 249
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 14077 of 2025

Dr. Vijay Bahadur Jaiswal & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
 Whether order dated 19.11.2025 is valid? Order
dated 19.11.2025 has been passed mainly on
the ground that the minimum eligibility criteria
provided vide circular dated 29.03.2011 issued
by the ICAR, has not been followed, rather
another eligibility criterion, which has been
mentioned in the advertisement, and therefore,
the whole selection proceedings has been stated
to be unlawful.

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Uttar Pradesh (Krishi
Evam
Prodyogik
Vishwavidyalaya)
Adhiniyam, 1958: Chapter 21: Section
28(r) - Every order has to stand on its own
legs - In present case as the findings recorded
regarding the circular dated 29.03.2011 issued
by the ICAR, stated to be applicable regarding
eligibility
criteria/qualifications,
in
the
appointment of the Program-Coordinator of
K.V.K. of the respondent university, is non est,
therefore, the whole order is erroneous and
ambiguous. (Para 30)

B. The circular dated 29.03.2011, rather the
circular which is as per the argument of the
counsel for the petitioners dated 26.04.2012,
which is ought to have been considered,
have been ignored by the Board of
Management, therefore, there was no
question so as to assume by any authority,
while publishing the advertisement to
prescribe the minimum eligibility criteria
for the appointment of the post of
Program Coordinator.

The
decision
of
the
enquiry
committee
constituted by the Chancellor has been taken
into consideration and the same has been
accepted, but there is no discussion of any kind
over the same, by the Board of Management of
the University. (Para 26)

It has been noticed the provisions regarding
number and qualification of employees of the
University, as is provided u/s 28(r) of Chapter
XXI of the Act of 1958, which says that the
number of Teachers in each department and
their qualification, shall be recommended by the
academic council which would be approved by
the Board of Management. Admittedly, in the
150th meeting of the Board of Management, the
agenda no. 10 was considered and discussed
and the agenda was approved w.r.t. the
qualification which, in fact, was mentioned in
the advertisement for appointment of the post
of
Program
Coordinator.
The
aforesaid
resolution of the Board of Management has
never been revoked or recalled by any
competent authority. (Para 27)

C. The report of the enquiry committee,
which is mentioned in the resolution of
the Board, by which the advertisement no.
5/2014 has been cancelled, has only been
mentioned and there is no discussion that
why
the
Board
of
Management
is
accepting the report and canceling the
advertisement no. 5/2014.

The Enquiry Committee has not unanimously
come to the conclusion regarding the charges
leveled against the petitioners, to be found
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proved, though, this all is the subject matter of
the Board of Management to be considered.
(Para 28, 29)

The resolution dated 19.11.2025 sent by
Secretary, Board of Management to the State
Government
for
its
approval
are
hereby
quashed. The matter is relegated back to the
Board of Management of respondent university
to take a fresh decision.

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election
Commissioner New Delhi, (1978) 1 SCC 40 (Para
12)
2. Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar and Another Vs. State
of U.P. and Others alongwith other connected
writ petitions, 2023 SCC OnLine All 2986 (Para
13)
3. Dr. Shiv Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
Ors., 2011 SCC OnLine All 2369 (Para 14)

List of Acts
 Uttar
Pradesh
(Krishi
Evam
Prodyogik
Vishwavidyalaya) Adhiniyam, 1958.

List of Keywords
 minimum
eligibility
criteria,
appointment,
selection, advertisement, process, committee.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Vikas Vikram Singh, Rajat
Gangwar
For Respondent(s): C.S.C., Uttam Kumar
Verma

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. On 5.12.2025, the following order
was passed:-

"Mr.
Uttam
Kumar
Verma,
learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3
to 6 and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh,
learned counsel appearing for the State are
directed to seek detailed instructions in the
matter.

List this matter on 9.12.2025 as
fresh."

2. In-compliance of the aforesaid, Mr.
Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for
the respondent-university has placed the
seriatim of the orders and the action taken
thereof by the Board of Management as
well as the Chancellor, stating it to be the
instructions, which is taken on record.

3. Heard Mr. Vikas Vikram Singh and
Mr. Rajat Gangwar, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Uttam Kumar Verma,
counsel for the respondent-university, Mr.
Shailendra Kumar Singh, Chief Standing
Counsel assisted by Mr. P.K. Singh,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State.

4. By means of the present petition,
the petitioners have assailed the minutes of
emergency
meeting
of
Board
of
Management dated 19.11.2025 of Chandra
Shekhar Azad University Of Agriculture &
Technology, Kanpur(hereinafter, referred
to as University) as well as the letter dated
19.11.2025, by which the resolution of the
board of management was placed before
the State Government for its approval.

5. The contentions put forth by learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners is that
the
respondent-university
is
governed
under the Uttar Pradesh (Krishi Evam
Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya) Adhiniyam,
1958(hereinafter, referred to as Act 1958).
He submits that in the year 2014, the
respondent-university invited applications
for appointment against the number of
teaching posts in the University by issuing
advertisement nos. 1/2014, 3/2014 and
5/2014 and the advertisement no. 5/2014
was for appointment on the post of
Program Coordinator for Krishi Vigyan
12 All. Dr. Vijay Bahadur Jaiswal & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
251
Kendra(KVK).
He
added
that
the
educational qualification was prescribed in
the
advertisement
itself,
which
was
approved by the Board of Management of
the University, in its 150th meeting and in
the
agenda
of Board
meeting.
The
minimum eligibility criteria were proposed,
in proposal no. 10 and was approved by the
Board's Meeting and the same is still intact
as that has never been assailed or revoked
by any authority of law or person.

6. Further, submission is that the
petitioners, who holds Master of Science in
Agriculture & Horticulture degree and
Doctorate in Horticulture, being fully
qualified applied for consideration of the
post
of
Program
Coordinator,
in
furtherance to the advertisement no. 5/2014
and an interview letter was issued to the
petitioners
on
06.12.2014
and
in
furtherance thereof, they appeared before
the selection committee on 23.12.2014 and
the
selection
committee,
after
due
consideration, recommended the name of
the petitioners for appointment, which was
to be placed before the Board of
Management, scheduled on 31.12.2014, but
a day prior to the said date, due to some
complaint, the Chancellor passed the order
through its Principal Secretary, whereby,
the meeting of the Board of Management,
which was scheduled on 31.12.2014 was
kept in abeyance, until further orders and
the
selection
proceedings
were
also
suspended. He added that along with
advertisement no. 5/2014, advertisement
nos. 1/2014 & 3/2014 were also issued and
in that respect, complaints were also made
with respect to irregularities and corrupt
practices against the then Vice-Chancellor,
Professor Munna Singh, whereafter, on
05.05.2015,
a
three-member
enquiry
committee was constituted by Chancellor
vider order date 05.05.2015 to conduct the
inquiry against Dr. Munna Singh and the
inquiry committee so appointed, has
submitted its final report, on 19.09.2016.
The
report
was
considered
by
the
Chancellor, whereafter, on 04.10.2016, the
remaining period of service of the then
Vice-Chancellor of the University was
terminated
and
on
07.10.2016,
the
Chancellor directed the acting ViceChancellor of the University to place a
copy of the order dated 04.10.2016
alongwith
the
inquiry
report
dated
19.09.2016,
before
the
Board
of
Management, to take appropriate decision
within a period of 15 days.

7. He argued that after passing of
about 11 months, while defying the order
passed by the Chancellor, the decision was
taken by the Board of Management and
advertisement nos. 1/2014 & 3/2014 were
cancelled, whereas, the advertisement no.
5/2014, in furtherance to which the
selection committee had recommended the
name of the petitioners for appointment,
was not cancelled. He also submitted that
one of the candidates, Ram Lakhan Singh,
who had also appeared before the selection
committee, instituted a writ petition,
bearing Writ A No. 12751 of 2025, before
this Court and after entertaining the writ
petition, this Court had passed an interim
order on 03.11.2025, for opening of the
sealed cover. He submitted that the Board
of Management, even after the letter
written by the Chancellor on 07.10.2016,
kept
on
sleeping
over
the decision
regarding the recommendation of the
Selection Committee, which was done in
furtherance to the advertisement no. 5 of
2014 and once the order was passed by this
Court for opening the sealed cover, the
impugned order dated 19.11.2025 was
passed, by which the recommendation of
the selection committee has been cancelled,
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
thus, the order passed by this Court for
opening the sealed cover has been violated
by the authorities concerned.

8. He further argued that since Mr.
Ram Lakhan Singh, the petitioner in the
Writ Petition No. 12751 of 2025, was not
recommended by the selection committee
for appointment, as anyhow the sealed
covers are opened, wherein, it was found
that the petitioners were recommended for
appointment
in
furtherance
to
the
advertisement no. 5/2014. The present
petitioners,
being
agrieved
with
the
decision dated 19.11.2025 have instituted
the present writ petition.

9. The contention of counsel for the
petitioners is that the sole and main ground for
rejecting the recommendation of the Selection
Committee while taking the decision vide
impugned order dated 19.11.2025 is that the
petitioners do not possess the requisite
qualification as is provided under the Circular
file No. 1-3/2009AE-1 dated 29.03.2011 issued
by the Indian Council for Agricultural
Research(hereinafter, referred to as ICAR). He
has drawn attention towards the circular dated
29.03.2011 issued by ICAR appended as
annexure no. 16 to this writ petition and
submitted that, in fact, the aforesaid circular do
not have binding effect, so far as the minimum
eligibility criteria for the post of Program
Coordinator is concerned. In support of his
contentions, he has referred Section 28(r) of
Chapter 21 of the Act, 1958, which reads as
under:-

"(r) the number, qualifications,
emoluments and other conditions of service
(including the age of retirement) of
teachers and salaried officers of the
University,
and
the
preparation and
maintenance of a record of their services
and activities;"

10.
Referring
the
aforesaid,
he
submitted that so far as the number,
qualifications and other service conditions
of the Teachers and salaried officers of the
University is concerned, the provisions
prescribes that the number of Teachers in
each department and their qualifications
shall be as 'recommended by the academic
council and approved by the Board of
Management.'
He
submitted
that,
admittedly, the Board of Management in its
150th meeting, in agenda no. 10, has placed
the issue regarding the approval of the
qualification criteria for direct recruitment
and that too has been approved and in
consonance thereof, the advertisement no.
5/2014 was published. He submitted that
nothing will be valid against the provisions
prescribed under the statute and if the
authorities had taken decision that, since
the minimum eligibility criterion and the
qualification which was prescribed in the
advertisement no. 5 of 2014, is against the
circular
of
ICAR
dated
29.03.2011,
wherein, certain qualifications and criteria
are prescribed, have not been complied
with, the same goes against the provision of
statute, therefore, the finding and the
decision, taken as such, by the Board of
Management itself is unlawful.

11. While buttress his arguments, he
submitted that in fact the decision which
was taken by the Board of Management
after an interim order was passed by this
Court on 03.11.2025, in Writ A No. 12751
of 2025, is in fact, do not stand on its own
legs, as the finding which is recorded and
the reasoning which have been given, are
nonest and is against the law, therefore, the
whole decision which was taken on
09.11.2025, canceling the recommendation
of the Selection Committee, vitiates in the
eyes of law. He further added that since the
decision with respect to the qualification
12 All. Dr. Vijay Bahadur Jaiswal & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
253
which was approved in 150th meeting of
Board of Management of the respondentUniversity has been reviewed in the order
dated 19.11.2025, thus, the same is also
against the settled proposition of law as the
Board of Management could not review its
own orders. He submitted that in fact the
resolution which was passed in 150th
meeting of Board of Management of the
University has neither been revoked nor
cancelled by any competent authority.

12. He has also given strength to his
arguments while referring the judgment and
order rendered in the case of Mohinder
Singh
Gill
versus
Chief
Election
Commissioner New Delhi - (1978) 1 SCC
40 and has referred paragraph 8 of the
abovesaid judgment:-

"8. The second equally relevant
matter is that when a statutory functionary
makes an order based on certain grounds,
its validity must be judged by the reasons
so mentioned and cannot be supplemented
by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or
otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the
beginning may, by the time it comes to
court on account of a challenge, get
validated by additional grounds later
brought out. We may here draw attention to
the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas
Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v.
Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR
1952 SC 16] :

"Public orders, publicly made, in
exercise of a statutory authority cannot be
construed in the light of explanations
subsequently given by the officer making the
order of what he meant, or of what was in his
mind, or what he intended to do. Public
orders made by public authorities are meant
to have public effect and are intended to
affect the actings and conduct of those to
whom they are addressed and must be
construed objectively with reference to the
language used in the order itself."

Orders are not like old wine
becoming better as they grow older."

13. In addition, the counsel for the
petitioners has also argued that the status of
ICAR has also been decided in the judgment
and order rendered in the case of Dr. Anil
Kumar Katiyar and Another Versus State
of U.P. and Others alongwith other
connected writ petitions, reported in 2023
SCC OnLine All 2986, and he has referred
paragraph nos. 20, 35 and 49 of the abovesaid
judgment, which are extracted as under:-

""20. Sri Ganguli has accepted
during the course of his submission that this
budget has been kept under a different head
and State Government has nothing to do with
that budget provided by the Council
inasmuch as those appointed and employed
on the posts of Scientist or Subject Matter
Specialist at the centre (KVK) only as per the
MOU and State Government has never
provided any matching grant or has directed
for framing any rules or regulations to
otherwise provide for the service conditions
of such employees. Sri Ganguli would also
not dispute that Chandra Shekhar Azad
Agricultural University has also not made
any amendment in its first Statute which has
been made applicable to the universities
separately to govern the service condition of
the employees like Scientist, Subject Matter
Specialist and other technical staff or other
regular staff working with KVK.

35. Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned
Advocate
appearing
for
the
other
university, namely, Chandra Shekhar Azad
University in one connected matter, adopts
the arguments advanced by Sri Ganguli
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with a further addition that judgment in the
case of Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey
(supra) would not apply as there in that
case there was a resolution of the Board of
Management of the university concerned
taking such staff of the KVK at par with the
faculty of university but here there is no
such resolution placed before the Court.

49. Now interestingly, Division
Bench has also noticed the stand of ICAR
filed before the Court by means of a short
counter affidavit, vide paragraphs 20, 21
and 22 of the judgment which are
reproduced hereunder:

"(20) The ICAR has filed a short
counter affidavit which also needs to be
referred to. According to the short counter
affidavit, Krishi Vigyan Kendras are
established
under
the
administrative
control of a Host Organization which in
this case is the University. The said short
counter affidavit states that the ICAR
provides cent percent financial assistance
to Krishi Vigyan Kendras under the 'Salary'
and 'General' heads of the annual budget
and further that the service conditions of
the employees of the Krishi Vigyan
Kendras are to be governed by the Rules,
Regulations and Policies of the respective
organization. The ICAR in the said short
counter affidavit has clearly stated that the
University is the Host Organization and at
the time of Memorandum of establishment
of Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Understanding
was signed between ICAR and the Host
Organization according to which all staff
of Krishi Vigyan Kendras shall be borne on
the establishment of the Grantee (Host
Organization) only. It also provides that
the administrative control over the staff
employed under the Scheme, shall vest in
the host institution and that placement of
the staff in case the project is terminated
shall be the sole responsibility of the Host
Organization.

(21) Para 13 of the short counter
affidavit filed by the ICAR, it has been
clearly stated that staff of Krishi Vigyan
Kendras are the employees of the Host
Organization and not that of ICAR. Such
stipulation is made in the Memorandum of
Understanding signed between the ICAR
and the University. The short counter
affidavit further refers to a Circular of the
ICAR dated 17.06.2015 according to which
all staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras shall be
borne on the establishment of the Host
Institution and further that the service
conditions
including
recruitment,
appointment etc. of the staff of Krishi
Vigyan Kendra shall be regulated as per
the Rules and Regulations of the Host
Institution. In para 16 of the short counter
affidavit, it has been stated that as per
Circular dated 17.06.2015 issued by the
ICAR, the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras are
the employees of the respective Host
Organizations and in this case, all the
employees of Krishi Vigyan Kendras are the
employees of th University and their service
conditions such as appointment, probation,
promotion, disciplinary matters, leave rules
and age of superannuation etc. will be
governed by the Rules and Regulations of the
University. It also mentions that the age of
retirement/superannuation is to be decided by
the respective Host Organization. Thus, the
case of ICAR is that the conditions of service
including the age of superannuation will be
as per the Rules applicable to the employees
of the University and further that the staff
working in Krishi Vigyan Kendras are the
staff of the Host Organization which in this
case is the University.

(22) The State Counsel has
argued that the petitioners are the
12 All. Dr. Vijay Bahadur Jaiswal & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
255
employees of Krishi Vigyan Kendras and
not that of the University. However, having
regard to the stand taken by the ICAR and
as per the Memorandum of Understanding
entered into ICAR which is Funding
Agency and the University, it is the Host
Institute under whose control the staff of
Krishi Vigyan Kendras work. As per the
said Memorandum of Understanding, so
far as the conditions of service of the staff
of Krishi Vigyan Kendras are concerned,
the same are to be governed by the Rules
and
Regulations
applicable
to
the
employees of the University.""

14.
Referring
the
aforesaid,
the
counsel appearing before the Court has
admitted the legal position that ICAR's
circular has not been adopted by the Board
of Management of the university. He has
further placed reliance on the judgment
rendered in the case of Dr. Shiv Kumar
Singh versus State of U.P. and Ors.
reported in 2011 SCC OnLine All 2369
and has referred paragraph no. 11 of the
aforesaid judgment, which is extracted as
under:-

"11. It is settled law that if a
Statute provides to do a thing in a
particular manner then that thing has to be
done in that very manner. In case the
petitioner
was
not
having
requisite
qualification as provided under the Statute
or in the advertisement, certainly it would
have been a case where the petitioner could
be held ineligible for appointment. But here
the case is different, the petitioner possess
essential qualification as provided under
the relevant Statute of the University and
the advertisement inviting the application
for the appointment on the aforesaid post of
Assistant
Professor.
The
qualification
prescribed by I.C.A.R. may be there but
unless it is inserted in the Statute of the
University, that can have no binding force.
In the event of non insertion of the said
qualification in the statute, the I.C.A.R.
may take action against the University (if it
is so permissible) but unless the alleged
instruction of 1.C.A.R. of the year 2003
(which has not even been brought on
record), is inserted in the Statute, that will
not vitiate the selection in question and the
petitioner's right to continue on the post
would be unaffected, as his selection was
made as per prescribed qualification given
in the Statute. The view taken by us finds
support from the Division Bench judgment
of this Court in the case of Prof. Chandra
Prakash Jha v. Vice Chancellor, Allahabad
University, (2000) (2) UPLBEC 1134:
(2000 ALJ 1667) where this Court has held
as under:

"It is settled law that delegated
legislation is as binding as the parent
legislation unless there is conflict between
the two. We do not find any conflict. In fact
Section 49(d) and (e) of the Act states that
the statutes of the Universities can provide
the terms and conditions of service of a
person appointed to a post under the
University. In our opinion Section 49(d)
and (e) includes the power to fix the age of
superannuation of the University teachers.
Since the age of superannuation has been
fixed by Statute 16, it can only be altered
by amending the Statute. In the system of
administration we have adopted from the
British, the executive is subordinate to the
legislature. Hence in our opinion the
Central Government has no power to issue
any
executive
order
abrogating
or
modifying any provision in the U.P. State
University Act or the statutes made
thereunder. In our opinion if any direction
of the U.G.C. had not been complied with
by the University concerned, the U.G.C.
can withhold or reduce the financial
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
assistance given to that university, but
neither the Central Government nor the
U.G.C. has any power to amend the Act or
statute. Under Section 50(1) the State
Government could amend the first statute
made by the State Government at any time
up to 31.12.1990, and the Executive
Council under Section 50(2) can amend the
Statute, thereafter. Under Section 50(4) the
amendment in the statute has to be
submitted to the Chancellor who may
assent to it or withhold his assent therefrom
or remit it to the Executive Council for
further
consideration.
Hence
any
amendment to Statute 16.24 changing the
age of superannuation of University
teachers can only be done in accordance
with Section 50 and by the authority
mentioned
in
Section
50.
No
such
amendment can be made by any other
authority or, in any other manner. If Sri
Upadhyaya's submission is accepted it will
logically lead to the result that the Central
Government or U.G.C. can issue a
direction to the University not to obey or
comply with the Act or statutes, and thus by
an executive order the University statute
(which is a piece of delegated legislation)
can be abrogated or modified. We cannot
accept such submission.""

15.
Referring
the
aforesaid,
he
submitted that the qualification if any,
prescribed by the ICAR with respect to the
qualification of appointment of Scientist or
likewise post in the University, would have
no bearing at all as the statute of the
University would prevail.

16. He further emphasized on the fact
that vide order dated 07.10.2016, the then
Chancellor of the University, directed the
payment of the entire salary together with
the allowances, for the entire period of his
suspension. Further added that in fact, the
inquiry committee has also not reached on
unanimous
or
ultimate
conclusion
regarding the charges leveled against Mr.
Prof. Munna Singh. He submitted that the
Board of Management has not considered
the fact that it is not the opinion of the
Chairman of the Enquiry Committee which
matters, but the opinions of the Members of
the Committee are also valuable as the two
members, as well as the chairman, gave
their separate opinions/observations while
concluding the inquiry proceeding. Moreso,
one of the members has said nothing
regarding any irregularity committed by the
Vice Chancellor, Professor Munna Singh,
but he has observed to this extent only that
the eligibility criteria provided in the
advertisement, is not in-consonance with
the Circular dated 29.03.2011, of the
ICAR.

17. Concluding his arguments, he
submitted that since the order dated
19.11.2025 and the finding thereof is
against the provisions of Act 1958,
therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

18. On the other hand, Mr. Uttam
Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing
for
the
respondent-university
has
vehemently opposed the contentions of
aforesaid
and
submitted
that
the
advertisement no. 5/2014 was published in
October 2014 and in compliance thereof,
the Selection Committee was constituted,
after
the
resolution
of
Board
of
Management, in its 150th meeting and
thereafter, a complaint was received by the
Chancellor,
regarding
irregularities
committed by the then Vice Chancellor,
whereafter, the Principal Secretary to the
Chancellor vide letter dated 30.12.2014,
issued a direction for putting the meeting of
the Board of Management in abeyance
which was scheduled for 31.12.2014. He
12 All. Dr. Vijay Bahadur Jaiswal & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
257
submitted that thereafter a preliminary
inquiry was done and subsequently, a threemember committee was constituted, headed
by a retired Judge of this Court, who
submitted his report on 19.09.2016.

19. Referring the aforesaid report, he
submits that one member of the committee,
in the conclusion of the report, has
observed that whether the charges leveled
against the then Vice-Chancellor, namely,
Munna Singh, were proven against him or
not in the light of the documentary and oral
evidences adduced during the enquiry and
not beyond that and therefore, he was of
firm view that he should not express any
opinion on the sanctity of whole selection
process, whereas, he pointed out the
circular dated 29.03.2011 issued by ICAR
regarding it's non-compliance. He also
added that each member of enquiry
committee had made their separate opinion
and the recommendation was, to quash the
selection proceedings.

20. He further submitted that incompliance
of
the
aforesaid
recommendation, the meeting of the Board
of
Management
of
the
respondentuniversity was convened and decision was
taken to cancel advertisement nos. 1/2014
and 3/2014, whereas, due to some mistakes,
the proceedings of selection, which was
done in furtherance of advertisement no.
5/2014 was not cancelled. He also
submitted that the decision taken by the
Board of Management is based on the
decision taken by the Enquiry Committee
and if the decision in the same stroke was
not taken for cancelling the advertisement
no. 5/2014, that is merely a fault and that
does not give strength to the sanctity of the
advertisement or any proceedings held
thereof.

21.
Adding
his
arguments,
he
submitted that once the order was passed
by this Court on 03.11.2025, the meeting of
the Board of Management of the University
was convened and a lawful decision was
taken for cancelling the recommendation of
the Selection Committee. During the course
of his arguments, he submitted that the
Circular of ICAR is in fact of 26.04.2012
which fixes the terms and conditions with
respect to the qualification for the post of
Program Coordinator.

22. Referring the decision taken by
the Board of Management, after the order
dated 03.11.2025 passed by this Court, he
submitted that there is no erroneousness
or ambiguity in the decision of the Board
and after thoroughly considering the pros
and cons of the matter, the Board of
Directors
has
taken
decision
and
therefore, no interference is warranted in
the same.

23. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh,
learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing
for the State submitted that though, the
letter has been received by the State, which
was sent by the Secretary, Board of
Management of the respondent-university
dated 19.11.2025, but the decision is still
pending consideration.

24. Upon considering the submission
of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that
the petitioners have assailed the order dated
19.11.2025, by which the Board of
Management of the respondent-university,
has taken a decision, in-compliance of the
order dated 03.11.2025 passed in Writ A
No. 12751 of 2025 and on the same day,
i.e. on 19/11/2025, the letter was written by
Secretary of Board to the State Govt. which
is also under challenge.
258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. The matter before the Court is to
examine the validity of the order dated
19.11.2025. This Court finds that the order
dated 19.11.2025 has been passed mainly
on the ground that the minimum eligibility
criteria
provided
vide
circular
dated
29.03.2011 issued by the ICAR, has not
been followed, rather another eligibility
criterion, which has been mentioned in the
advertisement, and therefore, the whole
selection proceedings has been stated to be
unlawful.

26. Further the decision of the enquiry
committee constituted by the Chancellor
has also been taken into consideration and
the same has been accepted, but there is no
discussion of any kind over the same, by
the
Board
of
Management
of
the
University. In fact, during course of
argument, the counsel for the respondentuniversity himself has submitted that it is
the circular of ICAR dated 26.04.2012
which covers the field regarding the
minimum qualification for appointment on
the post of Program Coordinator, whereas,
the Board of Management has apparently
considered in this regard, the circular dated
29.03.2011, issued by the ICAR, which
itself demolishes the decision of the Board
of
Management
of
the
respondentuniversity.

27. This Court has also noticed the
provisions
regarding
number
and
qualification
of
employees
of
the
University, as is provided under Section
28(r) of Chapter XXI of the Act of 1958,
which says that the number of Teachers in
each department and their qualification,
shall be recommended by the academic
council which would be approved by the
Board of Management. Admittedly, in the
150th
meeting
of
the
Board
of
Management, the agenda no, 10 was
considered and discussed and the agenda
was
approved
with
respect
to
the
qualification which, in fact, was mentioned
in the advertisement for appointment of the
post of Program-Coordinator. The aforesaid
resolution of the Board of Management has
never been revoked or recalled by any
competent authority. The circular dated
29.03.2011, rather the circular which is as
per the argument of the counsel for the
petitioners dated 26.04.2012, which is
ought to have been considered, have been
ignored by the Board of Management,
therefore, there was no question so as to
assume by any authority, while publishing
the
advertisement
to
prescribe
the
minimum
eligibility
criteria
for
the
appointment of the post of Program
Coordinator.

28. So far as the report of the enquiry
committee, which is mentioned in the
resolution of the Board, by which the
advertisement
no.
5/2014
has
been
cancelled, has only been mentioned and
there is no discussion that why the Board of
Management of the respondent-university
is accepting the report of the Enquiry
Committee, while coming to the conclusion
of canceling the advertisement no. 5/2014.

29. This Court has also noted the
contention of counsel for the petitioners
that the Enquiry Committee has not
unanimously come to the conclusion
regarding the charges leveled against the
petitioners, to be found proved, though, this
all is the subject matter of the Board of
Management to be considered.

30. The law is settled in this regard
that every order has to stand on its own
legs, as is prescribed in the law rendered in
the case of Mohinder Singh Gill(supra)
and that ratio covers the field of present
12 All. Indra Devi Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
259
case as the findings recorded regarding the
circular dated 29.03.2011 issued by the
ICAR, stated to be applicable regarding
eligibility criteria/qualifications, in the
appointment of the Program-Coordinator of
K.V.K. of the respondent-university, is
nonest, therefore, the whole order is
erroneous and ambiguous.

31. Consequently, the resolution dated
19.11.2025 sent by Secretary, Board of
Management to the State Government for
its approval are hereby quashed.

32. The matter is relegated back to the
Board of Management of respondentuniversity to take, a fresh decision, in light
of the aforesaid observations, within period
of eight weeks, from the date of this order.

33. The decision shall be taken strictly
in accordance with the provisions of the
Act 1958 as well as the settled propositions
of law, up till date.

34. With the aforesaid observations,
the present writ petition is hereby allowed.

35. Till the decision is taken, no
further proceedings with respect to the
appointment of the post of Program
Coordinator, against which the selection
committee has recommended the name of
petitioners for appointment, shall be done.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 259
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ A No. 14242 of 2025
&
Writ A No. 15566 of 2025
Indra Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
 Whether the petitioners are bound to be
suspended on the ground that they were not
found in the institution at the time of
inspection?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - The Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 has already promulgated by the
Central Government in the year 2009
according to which right to education to
the children is a fundamental right. In
case
teachers
will
not
attend
the
institution within time it will frustrate
the mandate of the Act, 2009 and the
children will be deprived off from this
fundamental rights guaranteed u/Article
21-A of the Constitution of India which
was inserted in to the Constitution by means
of the Constitution (86 Amendment) Act, 2002
which mandate every State to provide free
and compulsory education to all children in
the age group of 6 to 14 years. It is well
known fact that in large number of primary
institutions throughout the State of U.P.,
teachers are not attending the institution on
time. It is obligation on the State to ensure
imparting unbarred education to children
belonging to the primary institutions. (Para
31)

B. The reverence accorded to teachers
in Indian culture is not merely symbolic
but reflects a deep seated recognition
of their transformative role. From the
ancient Gurukula system to present day
educational
frame
work
teachers
have
consistently carried forward the legacy of
knowledge, values and ethical conduct. Any
dilution of the status, dignity of teachers
would have far reaching consequence not
only for students but society at large. (Para
30)

In this view of the matter and also in the
interest of justice, without interfering with
the orders of suspension, which are under