# Dr. Vinay Mohan Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 651
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-05-23
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26035 of 2008
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan, Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-vinay-mohan-tripathi-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41077
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. State Universities Act, 1973-Section
31(3)(c)-regularization-part
time
lecturer-working in an affiliated collegecannot be equated with regular teacherbenefit of regularization as contained in
Section 31(3)(c)-held-not available to
such part time teacher.

Held: Para 14 & 15

In view of the aforesaid statutory
provisions, we are of the considered
opinion that a teacher, who has been
appointed
in
an
affiliated
Degree
College, cannot be equated with that of
the teacher appointed in the University
with reference to Section 31 (3)(c) of the
U.P. State Universities Act.

We are also of the considered opinion
that any part time teacher appointed in a
Degree College cannot claim benefit of
the services rendered by him in the
affiliated
Degree
College
for
the
purposes
of
claiming
benefit
of
regularization under Section 31 (3)(c) of
the U.P. State Universities Act on being
subsequently appointed in the University
on part time/short term basis.
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008

## Text

2 All] Dr. Vinay Mohan Tripathi V. State of U.P. and others
651
case, this court in the case of Shikha
Singh & others vs. State of U.P. &
another 2007 (59) ACC 123. quashed the
proceedings of criminal case due to the
compromise entered into between the
parties. Similarly in the case of Dinesh
Kumar Jain & others vs. State of U. P. &
others 2007 (59) ACC 148, this court has
quashed the proceedings of the criminal
case under section 498A, 323,504, 506
IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act due to the
compromise entered into between the
parties in the proceedings under section
125 Cr.P.C. Reliance in this case has been
placed on B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana
(supra).

7. In view of the above discussion, I
am of the considered opinion that it would
be an abuse of the process of the Court, if
the criminal proceedings against the
applicants
and
other
accused
in
renumbered
allowed
to
continue.
Therefore, to do the complete justice, the
proceedings of the case may be quashed
by this Court in its inherent jurisdiction
under section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. Consequently, the application
under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 467 of
2007 (old No. 1923 of 2006) State vs.
Onkar Singh & others under section
498A, 323, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P.
Act, arising out of case Crime No. 358/05
of P.S. Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad,
pending in the court of Addl. Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
(Court
No.
5)
Ghaziabad, are hereby quashed.

The office is directed to send a copy
of this order to the Trial court concerned
for necessary action.
Application
Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26035 of 2008

Dr. Vinay Mohan Tripathi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri. S.P. Pandey
Sri. S.K. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri. B.D. Pandey
S.C.

U.P. State Universities Act, 1973-Section
31(3)(c)-regularization-part
time
lecturer-working in an affiliated collegecannot be equated with regular teacherbenefit of regularization as contained in
Section 31(3)(c)-held-not available to
such part time teacher.

Held: Para 14 & 15

In view of the aforesaid statutory
provisions, we are of the considered
opinion that a teacher, who has been
appointed
in
an
affiliated
Degree
College, cannot be equated with that of
the teacher appointed in the University
with reference to Section 31 (3)(c) of the
U.P. State Universities Act.

We are also of the considered opinion
that any part time teacher appointed in a
Degree College cannot claim benefit of
the services rendered by him in the
affiliated
Degree
College
for
the
purposes
of
claiming
benefit
of
regularization under Section 31 (3)(c) of
the U.P. State Universities Act on being
subsequently appointed in the University
on part time/short term basis.
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. Heard Sri S. P. Pandey, Advocate
on behalf of the petitioner and Sri B.D.
Pandey Advocate on behalf of the
respondents

2. This writ petition is directed
against the order of the Vice Chancellor
of
Deendayal
Upadhyay
Gorakhpur
University, Gorakhpur dated 16.01.2008
where under the regularization of the
petitioner,
as
earlier
directed
with
reference to Section 31(3)(c) of the U.P.
State Universities Act, 1973 (as amended
by U.P. Ordinance No.3 of 2004), has
been revoked.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has
vehemently
contended
that
once
regularization had been directed by the
University after obtaining a report from a
Four Member Committee, it is not open to
Vice
Chancellor
to
revoke
the
regularization. Even otherwise it is stated
that a part time teacher of an affiliated
Degree College, on been appointed in the
University
on
part
time
basis
subsequently, is entitled for computation
of the services rendered in the degree
college, for the purposes of regularization,
as a teacher of the University under
Section
31
(3)(c).
Therefore,
the
impugned order passed by the Vice
Chancellor is legally not sustainable.

4. The facts, which are not in dispute
in the present writ petition are that the
petitioner was initially appointed as part
time Lecturer in Degree College Bhatauli
Bazar, District-Gorakllpur on 25.04.1997.
The said Degree College is affiliated to
Deendayal
Upadhyay
Gorakhpur
University, Gorakhpur. The petitioner was
subsequently appointed as part time
Lecturer in the Hindi Department of the
University and is stated to have joined on
03.08.2001.

5. By U.P. Ordinance No.3 of 2004,
Section 31 (3)(c) was added to State
Universities Act, which reads as follows:

"(c) Any teacher of the University who
was appointed as lecturer / Part time
teacher on or before December 31, 1997
without
reference
to
the
Selection
Committee by way of a short term or part
time arrangement in accordance with the
provisions for the time being in force for
such
appointment,
may
be
given
substantive appointment by the Executive
Council, if any substantive vacancy of the
same cadre and grade in the same
department is available if such teacher-
(i) is serving as such on December 31,
1997 continuously since such initial
appointment by way of short term/ part
time arrangement;
(ii) possessed the qualifications requires
for regular appointments to the post
under the provisions of the relevant
Statutes in force on the date of substantive
appointment;
(iii) has been found suitable for regular
appointment by the Executive Council.
A teacher appointed by way of short term
/ part time arrangement as aforesaid who
does not get a substantive appointment
under this clause shall cease to hold such
post on such date as the Executive
Council may specify."

6. That a substantive vacancy on the
post of Lecturer Hindi was caused in the
Hindi Department of the University. The
petitioner made a request for his services
being regularized under Section 31(3)(c)
having regard to his initial appointment in
the Degree College. The request made by
2 All] Dr. Vinay Mohan Tripathi V. State of U.P. and others
653
the petitioner was not considered. He,
therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 53838 of
2006, which was disposed of vide order
dated 26.09.2006 with liberty to petitioner
to make a representation before the
University, which in turn was required to
consider the claim of the petitioner in a
time bound manner.

7. The University, on receipt of the
order of this Court, constituted a Four
Member
Selection
Committee
for
considering the claim of the petitioner.
The said Committee recommended that
Degree College affiliated to University is
no less than an institute as contemplated
in
the
Ordinance,
attracting
the
applicability
of
such
provisions
of
regularization under Section 31 (3)(c). On
receipt of the said report, the Vice
Chancellor
of
the
University,
after
obtaining legal opinion, issued an order
dated 04.08.2007 offering appointment to
petitioner substantive basis.

8. The petitioner claims to have
started working as regular Lecturer w.e.f.
10.10.2007. However, he was not paid
salary admissible to the post of Lecturer.
He,
therefore,
initiated
contempt
proceedings, being Contempt Petition No.
3370 of 2007, wherein notices were
issued.

9. It is at this stage of the
proceedings that the Vice Chancellor has
passed
the
impugned
order
dated
16.01.2008,
whereby
the
order
of
appointment
of
the
petitioner
on
substantive basis has been revoked.

10. From the facts as narrated herein
above, it is apparently clear that between
25.04.1997 to 03.08.2001 the petitioner
has admittedly working as part time
teacher in an affiliated Degree College of
the University namely Degree College
Bhatauli Bazar, Gorakhpur. From a
reading of Section 31 (3)(c) it is
apparently clear that only a teacher of the
University, who was appointed on part
time basis on or before December 31,
1997, is entitled to be offered substantive
appointment by the Executive Council, if
any substantive vacancy in the same
department or in the cadre of the same
department
is
available,
on
other
conditions
stipulated
therein
being
satisfied namely (i) that the teacher
concerned was serving as such on
December 31, 1997 continuously since his
initial appointment on short-term basis,
(ii) he is possessed of the prescribed
minimum qualification and (iii) he has
been
found
suitable
for
such
regularization by the Executive Council.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner was
not working in the University as part time
or on short-term appointment as on 31st
December, 1997.

11. A teacher appointed in affiliated
Degree College does not answer the
description of a teacher of the University
as is apparent from the provisions of
Section 31 of the State Universities Act
itself, which specifically differentiate
between the teacher to be appointed in a
Degree College and a teacher to be
appointed in the University.

12. Reference may also be had to
Section 31(3)(b) of the U.P. State
Universities Act, where under substantive
was directed to be offered to the teachers
who were appointed on temporary post
likely to last for more than 6 months and
subsequently such post stood converted
into substantive post or permanent post
both in respect of teachers of University
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
as well as they are appointed in Degree
Colleges.

13. At this stage it may also be
noticed that with the enforcement of U.P.
Higher Education Service Commission
Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as
Commission Act, 1980), appointment on
the post of teachers in affiliated Degree
Colleges
is
regulated
under
the
Commission Act, 1980 where under
various provisions for regularization of
teachers of Degree Colleges covered by
the aforesaid Commission Act, 1980 have
been issued from time to time namely
Section 31(1)(b) (added by Act No. 21 of
1988), Section 31-B (2) (a) (added by Act
No. 26 of 1989), Section 31-C (added by
U.P. Act No. 02 of 1992), Section 31-C
(added by U.P. Act No. 10 of 1997).

14. In view of the aforesaid statutory
provisions, we are of the considered
opinion that a teacher, who has been
appointed in an affiliated Degree College,
cannot be equated with that of the teacher
appointed in the University with reference
to Section 31 (3)(c) of the U.P. State
Universities Act.

15. We are also of the considered
opinion that any part time teacher
appointed in a Degree College cannot
claim benefit of the services rendered by
him in the affiliated Degree College for
the purposes of claiming benefit of
regularization under Section 31 (3)(c) of
the U.P. State Universities Act on being
subsequently appointed in the University
on part time / short term basis.

16. We, therefore, have no hesitation
to hold that since on the cut of date i. e.
31st December, 1997 the petitioner was
not a teacher in the University (working
on short term/part time), the benefit of the
regularization as per Section 31 (3) (c) of
the U.P. State Universities Act was not
attracted in the case of the petitioner.

17. The Vice Chancellor has acted in
conformity of law and is justified in
holding that the regularization earlier
offered to petitioner is legally not
sustainable and is in defiance of the
statutory provisions of Section 31 (3)(c).
There is no error in the order of the Vice
Chancellor
so
as
to
warrant
any
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Writ petition is
dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. RASTOGI, J.

Criminal Misc. Application 26653 of 2007

Panna Lal and others

...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri. Manish Goyal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri. B.P. Verma
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482quashing of charge sheet along with
criminal proceeding-applicant a Lekhpal
submitted false report in a mutation
proceeding before Tehsildar-under Para
22 of Land Record Manual on the other
hand wrongly shown alive person as
dead-instead of moving application u/s
340 Cr.P.C.-application under Section
156(3) case registered and charge sheet
submitted-held-Tehsildar itself a Courtinstead of moving application under