# Indra Mohan Dikshit v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 468
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-02-22
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50537 of 2005
- **Bench:** V.M. Sahai, Shishir Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/indra-mohan-dikshit-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40944
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri D.K. Srivastava
S.C.

U.P. Government Private aided Technical
Education Institutions Regulations 1996Regulation 14 (6)-Cancellation of entire
selection-post of Principal-name of two
senior
most
lecturer
including
the
petitioner and the respondent no. 5
send-respondent No. 5 stood first in
merit list-director refused to appoint on
the ground of overage-when the vacancy
advertised-held-the petitioner being at
serial No. 2 automatically entitled to be
placed at serial No. 1-when there is no
allegation of mal-practice-No illegality in
recommendation by selection committee
shown-entire
selection
can
not
be
cancelled.

Held: Para 5

Therefore, the second recommended
person by the selection committee in the
panel
of
selected
candidates
was
required to be considered. In case we
uphold the order of Director then it
would result in re-advertisement of the
vacancy
and
unnecessary
expenses
would
be
involved
in
making
the
advertisement which would further delay
the appointment of a regular principal.
2 All] Indra Mohan Dikshit V. State of U.P. and others
469
Further, since Regulation 14(6) clearly
states that the select list will contain the
recommendation more than the number
of
vacancy,
the
intention
of
the
Regulation making authority appears to
be that there should be panel of names.
If the intention was that only one name
for the post of principal should be
recommended then it would have been
clearly provided in Regulation 14(6). The
Regulation has to be interpreted in such
a manner that it advances the purpose
for which it had been framed. Therefore,
we hold that panel of at least two names
for the post of principal is required to be
sent by the selection committee so that
if the candidate at serial no.1 is found
ineligible or he does not join then the
second
candidate
could
be
offered
appointment.

## Text

468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
13. Lastly it is urged that now under
a new scheme she is not entitled to
appointment but only some monetary
benefit. This argument also cannot be
accepted
because
vide
the
earlier
judgment dated 3.3.2005, which has
become final, the claim has to be
considered under the scheme dated
19.2.1997.

No other point has been urged.

14. Normally, the Court is very
loathe to grant a mandate itself for
appointment but as has been noted
hereinabove, twice the Bank has raised
the same bogey and misleading grounds
to reject the claim of the widow. Since the
Bank appears to have a closed mind on
the issue and is harassing a young widow
by forcing her to approach the Court time
and again it would be against the interest
of justice to remand the matter for
decision afresh. Applying the ratio of a
Division Bench of this Court rendered in
the case of Dr. Sangeeta Srivastava Vs.
University of Allahabad and others
(2002) (3) U.P.L.B.E.C. 2502, which has
been affirmed by the Apex Court, remand
would be futile.

15. For the reasons above, this
petition succeeds and is allowed and the
impugned order dated 3.5.2005 is hereby
quashed and the respondent bank is
directed
to
grant
compassionate
appointment
to
the
petitioner
expeditiously, preferably within a period
of six weeks from the date of submission
of a certified copy of this order. Petitioner
would be entitled to her costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.02.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50537 of 2005

Indra Mohan Dikshit

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri Aditya Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri D.K. Srivastava
S.C.

U.P. Government Private aided Technical
Education Institutions Regulations 1996Regulation 14 (6)-Cancellation of entire
selection-post of Principal-name of two
senior
most
lecturer
including
the
petitioner and the respondent no. 5
send-respondent No. 5 stood first in
merit list-director refused to appoint on
the ground of overage-when the vacancy
advertised-held-the petitioner being at
serial No. 2 automatically entitled to be
placed at serial No. 1-when there is no
allegation of mal-practice-No illegality in
recommendation by selection committee
shown-entire
selection
can
not
be
cancelled.

Held: Para 5

Therefore, the second recommended
person by the selection committee in the
panel
of
selected
candidates
was
required to be considered. In case we
uphold the order of Director then it
would result in re-advertisement of the
vacancy
and
unnecessary
expenses
would
be
involved
in
making
the
advertisement which would further delay
the appointment of a regular principal.
2 All] Indra Mohan Dikshit V. State of U.P. and others
469
Further, since Regulation 14(6) clearly
states that the select list will contain the
recommendation more than the number
of
vacancy,
the
intention
of
the
Regulation making authority appears to
be that there should be panel of names.
If the intention was that only one name
for the post of principal should be
recommended then it would have been
clearly provided in Regulation 14(6). The
Regulation has to be interpreted in such
a manner that it advances the purpose
for which it had been framed. Therefore,
we hold that panel of at least two names
for the post of principal is required to be
sent by the selection committee so that
if the candidate at serial no.1 is found
ineligible or he does not join then the
second
candidate
could
be
offered
appointment.

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.M. Sahai, J.)

1. The petitioner was appointed in
February, 1980 as lecturer in Mechanical
Engineering in Chandauli Polytechnic,
Chandauli (in brief institution). The
institution is receiving granted-in-aid
from the State Government and the
payment of salary to the principal and
teaching
staff
is
made
from
the
government fund. The institution is
governed by the provisions of U.P.
Government Private Aided Technical
Education Institutions Regulations, 1996
(in brief Regulations). The permanent
principal of the institution retired on
30.6.1997. A substantive vacancy on the
post of Principal came into existence. The
petitioner was appointed as officiating
principal
of
the
institution
from
11.11.1999 to 30.5.2003. The selection
committee issued an advertisement on
15.2.2002 for selection for the post of
principal.
However,
no
selection
proceedings could be held.

2. Another advertisement dated
20.5.2004 was issued for appointment of
Principal
in
Chandauli
Polytechnic,
Chandauli. The petitioner along with six
others applied in pursuance to the said
advertisement. The selection committee
prepared a panel and recommended the
name of respondent no.5 at serial no.1 and
that of petitioner at serial no.2 to the
Director,
Technical
Education,
U.P.,
Kanpur (in brief Director). The Director
on
27.10.2004
held
that
the
recommendation of selection committee
with regard to Respondent No.5 Sri
Radhey Shyam Singh could not be
approved as the experience shown by him
has not been properly verified by the
selection committee. By another order
dated 5.3.2005 the Director held that on
the date of advertisement i.e. 20.5.2004
the respondent no.5 was aged about 52
years though the maximum age for the
post of Principal was 50 years. Sri Radhey
Shaym Singh was found to be over age.
The selection committee had calculated
the
age
of
respondent
no.5
from
15.2.2002, the date when the first
advertisement was issued which was
illegal, therefore, the appointment of
respondent no.5 was not approved. The
Director also quashed the selection
process initiated by respondent no.4 and
directed that a fresh advertisement be
issued for selection on the post of
Principal. In this writ petition the
petitioner has challenged the order dated
5.3.2005 of the Director by which he has
cancelled the entire selection proceedings
for the post of principal and has directed
for re-advertisement of the vacancy. The
petitioner has prayed that he may be
granted appointment on the post of
principal
in
pursuance
to
the
recommendations
of
the
selection
committee dated 5.10.2004.
470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
3. We have heard Sri Ashok Khare,
learned senior counsel assisted by Sri
Aditya Kumar Singh, Advocate appearing
for the petitioner and learned standing
counsel appearing for respondents no.1 to
3. Sri D.K.Srivastava, Advocate has filed
his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent
no.5. He is not present though the matter
has been taken up in the revised list and
his name has also been printed in the
cause list. Service of notice on respondent
no.4 has been deemed to be sufficient by
order dated 25.1.2006 under the Rules of
the Court.

4. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel
for the petitioner has urged that since a
panel of two names was sent, as per
Regulation 14(6) of the Regulations if the
candidate recommended at serial no.1 was
found to be ineligible then the second
person recommended in the panel namely,
the
petitioner
was
entitled
to
be
considered for appointment, but the
Director has illegally set aside the entire
selection
and
directed
for
fresh
advertisement. The standing counsel has
supported the impugned order relying on
the counter affidavit filed by him.

Regulation 14(6) of the Regulations
is extracted below:-

"ljdkj ls lgk;rk izkIr mRrj izns'k izkfof/kd f'k{kk
laLFkk fofu;ekoyh] 1996-

141⁄461⁄2 p;u lfefr vH;fFkZ;ksa dh mudh izoh.krk&dze esa
tSlk fd lk{kkRdkj esa izR;sd vH;FkhZ dks izkIr vadksa ls izdV
gks] ,d lwph rS;kj djsxhA ;fn nks ;k vf/kd vH;FkhZ
cjkcj&cjkcj vad izkIr djsa rks vk;q esa T;s"B vH;FkhZ dks
lwph esa mPprj LFkku esa j[kk tk;sxkA lwph esa ukekas dh
la[;k] fjfDr;ksa dh la[;k ls vf/kd fdUrq iPphl izfr'kr ls
T;knk vf/kd ugha gksxhA"

5. It is not disputed by the
respondents that the select list was
prepared in accordance with Regulation
14. In paragraphs 3 and 8 of the counter
affidavit it has been stated that since there
was only one vacancy for the post of
principal, only one name was required to
be
recommended
by
the
selection
committee as sending of second name
would be in excess of 25% of the vacancy
as provided by Regulation 14(6). The last
line of Regulation 14(6) is important. It
provides that in the select list names will
be recommended in excess of the
vacancy, but it should not exceed more
than 25%. Regulation 14(6) applies to the
selection of both principal and teachers.
In case of principals as there would
always be only one vacancy and as per the
aforesaid regulation names have to be
recommended more than the number of
vacancy as per the Regulations which
would mean at least two names. The bar
created
by
Regulations
that
the
recommendation should not be made in
excess of 25% of the vacancies, would
apply, in our opinion, in case of teachers
where more than one teachers are to be
appointed, in such a case the panel of
names should not be in excess of 25% of
the vacancies. There is another reason,
which has persuaded us to take the view
that for the post of principal at least two
names should be recommended as per
Regulation 14(6). As seen in this case
regular selection to the post of principal
of the polytechnic has not been made for
more than seven years. The selection
committee has recommended two names.
The first name was of respondent no.5
who had been found by the Director to be
over
age.
Therefore,
the
second
recommended person by the selection
committee in the panel of selected
candidates was required to be considered.
2 All] U.P.S.R.T.C. V. Kashi Nath and others
471
In case we uphold the order of Director
then it would result in re-advertisement of
the vacancy and unnecessary expenses
would be involved in making the
advertisement which would further delay
the appointment of a regular principal.
Further, since Regulation 14(6) clearly
states that the select list will contain the
recommendation more than the number of
vacancy, the intention of the Regulation
making authority appears to be that there
should be panel of names. If the intention
was that only one name for the post of
principal should be recommended then it
would have been clearly provided in
Regulation 14(6). The Regulation has to
be interpreted in such a manner that it
advances the purpose for which it had
been framed. Therefore, we hold that
panel of at least two names for the post of
principal is required to be sent by the
selection committee so that if the
candidate at serial no.1 is found ineligible
or he does not join then the second
candidate could be offered appointment.

6. From the perusal of records as
well as the counter affidavit, we do not
find that any finding has been recorded by
the Director that the selection made by the
selection committee in recommending the
panel of names any illegality or malpractice was committed by the selection
committee. We are of the opinion that the
Director was not justified in setting aside
the entire selection process initiated by
respondent no.4 and directing for fresh
advertisement for appointment on the post
of principal. The Director is required to
consider the claim of the petitioner who
was at serial no.2 in the panel for
appointment on the post of principal,
Chandauli Polytechnic, Chandauli as the
candidate at serial no.1 in the panel had
been found over age and ineligible for
appointment.

7. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The order dated
5.3.2005 passed by respondent no.2
cancelling the selection process and
directing
for
fresh
advertisement,
Annexure-6 to the writ petition, is
quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued to
the Director, Technical Education, U.P.,
Kanpur to consider the name of the
petitioner for appointment on the post of
Principal,
Chandauli
Polytechnic,
Chandauli within a period of one month
from the date a certified copy of this order
is produced before Respondent No.2.

8. The parties shall bar their own
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.48466 of 2004

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
and others

...Petitioner
Versus
Kashi Nath and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Samir Sharma
Sri Sheshadri Trivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.S. Rathor
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Termination
order
passed
by
the
management on the ground workman
produced
forged
and
false
caste