# Dr. Vijay Laxmi Agarwal v. The Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Jyotiba Phoole Ruhil Khand University, Bareilly and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 132
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-01-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1704 of 2001
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Krishna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-vijay-laxmi-agarwal-v-the-vice-chancellor-mahatma-jyotiba-phoole-ruhil-khand-39896
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-Practic
8 C Procedure- averments made in writ
petition- No specific denial - mere bald
denial- shall be treated as admission.

Held - Para 7

The replies to paragraphs 11 and 12 of
the
writ
petition
are
contained
in
paragraphs 27 and 28 of the counter
affidavit
of
the
committee
of
management. The only answer contained
therein is that the allegations contained
in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the writ
petition are denied. It is settled law that
if there is no specific denial of the
allegations in the petition then a mere
bald denial will not do and it will be
treated as an admission. In paragraphs
27 and 28 of the counter affidavit there
is merely a bald denial and not a specific
denial of the allegations contained in
paragraphs 11 and 12 of the writ
petition. We have, therefore to hold that
the petitioner was not given any show
cause notice or opportunity of hearing
before passing the impugned order.

Statutes
of
Ruhil
Khand
University
Statute
No.11.20-appointment
of
officiating
principal-Senior
most
lecturer-superseded-No
show
cause
notice given held illegal-senior most
lecturer is entitled to work as officiating
Principal.

Held.- Para 9

In
our
opinion,
this
would
avoid
arbitrariness and would be sufficient
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.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.1.2003

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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1704 of 2001

Dr. Vijay Laxmi Agarwal
...Petitioner
Versus
The Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Jyotiba
Phoole Ruhil Khand University, Bareilly
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ishrat Ali
Sri Surendra Prasad
Sri Irshad Ali

Counsel for the Respondents:
Dr. R.G. Padia
Sri A.K. Pandey
Sri Govind Saran

Constitution of India, Article 226-Practic
8 C Procedure- averments made in writ
petition- No specific denial - mere bald
denial- shall be treated as admission.

Held - Para 7

The replies to paragraphs 11 and 12 of
the
writ
petition
are
contained
in
paragraphs 27 and 28 of the counter
affidavit
of
the
committee
of
management. The only answer contained
therein is that the allegations contained
in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the writ
petition are denied. It is settled law that
if there is no specific denial of the
allegations in the petition then a mere
bald denial will not do and it will be
treated as an admission. In paragraphs
27 and 28 of the counter affidavit there
is merely a bald denial and not a specific
denial of the allegations contained in
paragraphs 11 and 12 of the writ
petition. We have, therefore to hold that
the petitioner was not given any show
cause notice or opportunity of hearing
before passing the impugned order.

Statutes
of
Ruhil
Khand
University
Statute
No.11.20-appointment
of
officiating
principal-Senior
most
lecturer-superseded-No
show
cause
notice given held illegal-senior most
lecturer is entitled to work as officiating
Principal.

Held.- Para 9

In
our
opinion,
this
would
avoid
arbitrariness and would be sufficient
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.

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

1. Heard Sri Ishrat Ali learned
counsel for the petitioner and Dr. R.G.
Padia
for
Dr.
(Smt.
Neerja
Garg
respondent no. 3.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of respondent no. 2, the
Committee of Management of S.B.D.
Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Dhampur, district
Bijnor through Dr. Awadhesh Saxena.

3. The short point involved in this
case is as to who is entitled to be
appointed as officiating Principal of the
institution till the regular selection is
made by the U.P. Higher Education
Services Commission. Admittedly the
petitioner Dr. Vijay Laxmi Agarwal is
senior to Dr. Neerja Garg Statute 11.20 of
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Dr. V.L. Agarwal V. The V.C., Mahatma Jyotiba Phoole Ruhil Khan University & ors. 133
the
Statutes
of
the
Rohil
Khand
University states:

"11.20. When the office of the
Principal of an Affiliated College falls
vacant, the Management may appoint any
teacher to officiate as Principal for a
period of three months or until the
appointment of a regular Principal,
whichever is earlier. If on or before the
expiry of the period of three months, any
regular Principal is not appointed, or such
a Principal does not assume office, the
senior most teacher in the college shall
officiate as Principal of such college until
a regular Principal is appointed."

4. A perusal of the above quoted
statute shows that when the post of
Principal of a College falls vacant, the
management can appoint any teacher as
officiating Principal for three months or
until regular selection is made, whichever
is earlier. However, if on the expiry of
three
months
no
regularly
selected
Principal is appointed or such a Principal
does not assume office, the senior most
teacher in the College shall officiate as
Principal until regular appointment.

5. In the present case the permanent
Principal of the College Dr. Saroj
Markandey retired on 30.6.2000 and
hence admittedly a vacancy had occurred.
The committee of Management appointed
the petitioner as officiating Principal of
the College on 1.7.2000. However,
thereafter by the impugned resolution
dated 18.12.2000 the committee of
Management removed the petitioner from
the post of Principal and appointed the
respondent no. 3 as officiating Principal,
vide Annexure 4 to the writ petition.

6. It has been asserted in paragraph
11 and 12 of the writ petition that no
opportunity of hearing was given to the
petitioner before passing the impugned
order
dated
20.12.2000/
3.1.2001
(Annexure 4 to the writ petition).

7. The replies to paragraphs 11 and
12 of the writ petition are contained in
paragraphs 27 and 28 of the counter
affidavit
of
the
committee
of
management. The only answer contained
therein is that the allegations contained in
paragraphs 11 and 12 of the writ petition
are denied. It is settled law that if there is
no specific denial of the allegations in the
petition then a mere bald denial will not
do and it will be treated as an admission.
In paragraphs 27 and 28 of the counter
affidavit there is merely a bald denial and
not a specific denial of the allegations
contained in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the
writ petition. We have, therefore to hold
that the petitioner was not given any show
cause notice or opportunity of hearing
before passing the impugned order.

8. It has been held by a Division
Bench
of
this
Court
in
Teachers
Association of Sanatan Dharam (PG)
College & others vs. Chowdhary Charan
Singh University, Meerut and others 2000
(2) ALJ 1862, following the Full Bench
decision in Radha Raizada vs. Committee
of Management Vidwati Darbari Girls
Inter College, 1994 ALJ 1077 that while
ordinarily the senior most teacher should
be appointed Principal of a Degree
College,
till
regular
selection,
in
exceptional circumstances where it would
not be in the interest of the institution to
appoint the senior most teacher, he can be
superseded and the next after him in
seniority can be appointed.
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