# Meerut College Parivar Kalyan Samiti v. State of U.P.& others

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 62
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000-07-03
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/meerut-college-parivar-kalyan-samiti-v-state-of-u-p-others-39629
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

62 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
same way a private person has an absolute
power to allow whom he likes to use his
land, to release a debtor, or, where the law
permits, to evict a tenant, regardless of his
motives. This is unfettered discretion. But
a public authority may do none of these
things unless it acts reasonably and in
good faith and upon lawful and relevant
grounds of public interest.

There are many cases in which a
public authority has been held to have
acted from improper motives or upon in
relevant considerations, or to have failed
to take account of relevant considerations,
so that its action is ultra vires and void."

The action of the public authority,
therefore, must be based on some rational
and relevant purpose. It must not be
guided
by
irrational
or
irrelevant
considerations. It is expected a statutory
public authority must exercise its powers
in public interest and for public good .
Misuse of power implies doing of
something improper. The essence of
impropriety is replacement of public
motive for a private one. Certainly the
decisions which are capricious cannot be
legitimate.

14. Without dilating over the matter
any further, suffice it to say that the
respondent-Authority is duty bound to
pass
appropriate
orders
for
validating/revewal of the plan submitted
by the petitioners in the light of the
directions made by the appellate court as
well as the observations made above.
Already there has been a considerable
delay
in
completing
the
work
of
construction.
If
the
Authority
had
extended time in view of the policy
decision taken by the State Government
for extension of the validity period of the
plans and had not sealed the site, hotel
building by now would have reached an
advanced stage. The petitioners should
not be permitted to suffer any further due
to the arbitrary, unjustified and callous
attitude of the officers of the Authority.

15. This writ petition is finally
decided with the direction that the
respondent
no.3-Authority
shall
immediately pass orders (not later than 15
days from the date of copy of this
judgement is produced before it) for the
revalidation/renewal of the plan filed by
the petitioners and release the same
pursuant to the order dated 3.7.2000 of
the appellate authority as well as the State
Government dated 30.9.2000 and after
removing the seal from the site, it shall
make it available for further constructions
according to the original sanctioned plan,
without any let or hindrances.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 656,1*+ -
7+( +21·%/( 656,1*+ -
7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -
7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

0HHUXW &ROOHJH 3DULYDU .DO\DQ 6DPLWL
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH
RI
83
WKURXJK
LWV
6HFUHWDU\
+LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ /XFNQRZ RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 3UDPRG -DLQ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
6&
6KUL 6KDLOHQGUD
1All] Meerut College Parivar Kalyan Samiti V. State of U.P.& others
63
)LUVW
VWDWXWHV
RI
0HHUXW
8QLYHUVLW\
VWDWXWH
%HQHILW
RI
DFDGHPLF
VHVVLRQ 3ULQFLSDO RI DQ DIILOLDWHG FROOHJH
DWWDLQLQJ WKH DJH RI VXSHUDQQXDWLRQ RQ

VHUYLFH
H[WHQGHG
XSWR
 KHOG QHHG QR LQWHUIHUHQFH LQ
YLHZ RI ODZ ODLG GRZQ E\ +LJK &RXUW LQ
8GDL 1DUDLQ 3DQGH\ FDVH UHSRUWHG LQ
 83/%(&
+HOG SDUD
,W PD\ EH SRLQWHG RXW WKDW VWDWXWH
DSSOLHV
WR
8QLYHUVLWLHV
ZKLOH
WKH
SURYLVLRQV FRQWDLQHG LQ 6WDWXWH
DSSO\LQJ
WR
DIILOLDWHG
FROOHJHV
7KH
DWWHQWLRQ RI WKH $SH[ &RXUW ZDV SHUKDSV
QRW
LQYLWHG
WR
WKH
UHOHYDQW
VWDWXWH
DSSOLFDEOH WR DIILOLDWHG FROOHJH +RZHYHU
VWDWXWH UHIHUUHG WR WKH MXGJHPHQW
RI WKH VXSUHPH &RXUW LV LQ SDUL PDWHULD
ZLWK VWDWXWH

By the Court

1. Heard Sri Pramod Jain appearing
for the petitioner, Standing Counsel
representing
the
state,
Sri
Vivek
Chaudhary for Vice Chancellor and Sri
Shailendra representing the respondent
no. 4 Dr. V.B. Chauhan. Since we are not
interfering with the impugned order it is
not
necessary
to
issued
notice
to
Committee
of Management and the
Director, Anti Corruption Branch, C.B.I.
arrayed herein as respondent nos. 3 and 5
respectively.

The writ petition is directed against
the office memo dated 17.6.2000 by
which the service of the fourth respondent
has been extended upto 30.6.2001. it is
not disputed that the fourth respondent
was born on 2.7.1940 and as such he
attained the age of superannuation on
2.7.2000. the services of the petitioner,
however, stood extended up to 30.6.2001.
under Statute 17.15 of the First Statutes of
the University of Meerut. The College in
question is affiliated to the said university
Statute 17.15 being relevant to the
controversy is quoted hereunder:

" 17.15 No extension in service
beyond the age of superannuation shall be
granted to any teacher after the date of
commencement
of
these
Statutes.
Provided that a teacher-

(i) whose date of superannuation does not
fall on June 30. Or

(ii) whose date of birth is July 1 and who
having been employed from before the
commencement
of
these
Statutes
continues to be in service as such on the
date of commencement of the Meerut
University (Twenty second Amendment )
First Statutes, 1985: shall continue in
service till the end of the academic
session, that is, June 30 following, and
will be treated as on re-employment from
the
date
immediately
following
his
superannuation till June 30 following.

2. The question is whether the
benefit of Statute 17.15 could be given to
the Principal of an affiliated college.
Section 2 (18) of the Universities Act.
1973 defines " teacher ' to mean, "a
person
employed
(for
imparting
instructions or guiding or conducting
research in the University or in an
institute or in a constituent, affiliated or
associated
college)
and
includes
a
Principal or a Director " By this
reckoning
Principal
of
an
affiliated
college would be deemed to be a 'teacher'
and therefore, he was entitled to get the
benefit of Statute 17.15 and accordingly,
to continue in service till the end of
academic session i.e. to say till 30th June
following the date of his superannuation.
64 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
No
resolution
of
Committee
of
Management is required to be passed in
this regard inasmuch as the extension in
service and re-employment takes place by
operation of law and the petitioner will be
treated as " reemployment from the date
immediately following his superannuation
till June 30 following"

3. Sri Pramod Jain, learned counsel
has placed reliance on a decision of
Supreme Court in S.K. Rathi Vs. Prem
Hari Sharma and others. The said
decision, in our opinion, is not applicable
to the facts of the present case. It would
appear from the facts of that case that a
teacher was acting as on officiating
principal and the question arose as to
whether on extension of his service as a
teacher he was entitled to continue as
officiating principal of the college the
management did not allow him to work as
officiating principal. He filed Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 54640 of 1990 Dr. Prem
Hari Sharma Vs. Dr. B.R. Ambedakar.
University of Agra and others, in which a
Division Bench of this court passed the
following order:

"Sri Pankaj Mittal has appeared for
respondent no. 1 and learned counsel for
Central Govt. for respondent nos. 2.3 and
4. They may file C.A. within a month.
List in the week commencing 14th
Feb. 2000. In view of the Division Bench
decision in Udai Narain Pandey Vs.
Director
of
Education
1999
(3)
U.P.L.B.E.C.
1887,
we
direct
that
petitioner shall continue to function as
principal of the institution in question till.
30.9.2000.
Sd/-M.Katju. J.
Sd/-S.K. Agarwal. J.
5.1.2000'

4. Against the interim order dated
5.1.2000 Special Leave Petition was filed
by Sri. S.K. Rathi which has been decided
by the Supreme and is reported in Jt.
2000 (8) SC 267. It would appear that the
provisions contained in Section 2 (18) of
the of the State Universities Act. 1973
were not brought to the notice of their
Lordships
the
Supreme
Court
and
therefore, it was held that is as result of
extension, the teacher concerned would be
entitled to continue as a teacher in his
substantive appointment but not as a
principal. The post of a principal is a
direct recruitment post and is not a post to
be filled by promotion. But since a
teacher in that case was given officiating
appointment as principal and the Apex
court proceeded as if the post of principal
was to be filled up b promotion as would
appear from the observation:" It is a
teacher on promotion who is appointed as
a Principal and there is no decision of the
government giving extension beyond the
age of 60 years to a principal." This
observation was perhaps, made because
the relevant provisions were not brought
to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court

5. In Uddi Narain pandey Vs.
Director
of
Education
(Higher
Education) Allahabad and others the
question involved herein was considered
by a Division Bench of this Court wherein
it was held that a person appointed as
principal holding the said post till the date
of
superannuation
is
entitled
to
reemployment in the service as per the
Statute. The Special leave to Appeal
(Civil) No. 3895 of 1999 was preferred
against the judgement. Upon hearing the
counsel the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
pleased to pass the following order:
1All] Dinesh Chand Sharma V. D.I.O.S., Meerut & others
65
"We are in agreement with the High
Court that in view of the provisions of
Statute 16.24 read with Section 2 (18) of
the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the
Principal who was in office could be reemployed till 30th June following his age
of superannuation. In this view of the
matter, the continuation of respondent no.
5 till 30th June, 1999 is in accordance with
law.
The
special
leave
petition
is
dismissed."

6. It may be pointed out that Statute
16.24 applies to Universities while the
provisions contained in Statute 17.15
applying
to
affiliated
colleges.
The
attention of the apex Court was perhaps
not invited to the relevant Statute
applicable to affiliated college. However,
statute 16.24 referred to the judgment of
the Supreme Court is in pari materia with
Statute 17.15

Accordingly, we find no merits in
this case. The writ petition is dismissed.

$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( *
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -
3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21·%/( 6+,7/$ 3' 65,9$67$9$-
7+( +21·%/( 6+,7/$ 3' 65,9$67$9$-

6SHFLDO $SSHDO 1R RI

'LQHVK &KDQG 6KDUPD
«3HWLWLRQHU
$SSHOODQW
9HUVXV
'LVWULFW ,QVSHFWRU RI 6FKRROV 0HHUXW DQG
RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSHOODQW
6KUL $VKRN .KDUH
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

,QWHUPHGLDWH
(GXFDWLRQ
$FW

5HJXODWLRQV WR DV DPHQGHG
1DWXUDO
-XVWLFH
&RPSDVVLRQDWH
DSSRLQWPHQW ±1R VHFRQG DSSRLQWPHQW
RQ FRPSDVVLRQDWH JURXQG
+HOG SDUD
:H DUH RI WKH YLHZ WKDW ZKHQ WKH IDWKHU
RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU GLHG SHWLWLRQHU ZDV
OHJDOO\ HQWLWOHG WR JHW DQG DSSRLQWPHQW
RQ FRPSDVVLRQDWH JURXQG DQG KH ZDV
ULJKWO\ DSSRLQWHG DV DQ DVVLVWDQW FOHUN DV
KH
ZDV
TXDOLILHG
IRU
WKDW
SRVW
RQO\
KDYLQJ TXDOLILFDWLRQ RI LQWHUPHGLDWH RQO\
7KH ODZ RQ FRPSDVVLRQDWH JURXQG LV YHU\
FOHDU ,W LV IRU WKH SXUSRVH RI JLYLQJ
ILQDQFLDO DVVLVWDQFH WR WKH GHSHQGDQWV
DQG WKH IDPLO\ PHPEHUV RI WKH GHFHDVHG
ZKR ZDV D EUHDG HDUQHU DQG GLHG GXULQJ
WKH
FRXUVH
RI
KLV HPSOR\PHQW ,W LV
DSSDUHQW IURP WKH RUGHU SDVVHG E\ WKH
'LVWULFW
,QVSHFWRU
RI
6FKRROV
0HHUXW
GDWHG

WKDW
WKH
RIILFHU
FRQFHUQHG FRQVLGHUHG WKH UHOHYDQW UXOHV
DQG ODZ UHSRUWHG LQ 6&& SDJH
 ZKHUHLQ LW KDV EHHQ FOHDUO\ KHOG WKDW
QR SHUVRQ LV HQWLWOHG WR FODLP WKH EHQHILW
XQGHU G\LQJ LQ KDUQHVV UXOHV PRUH WKDW
RQFH
7KHUHIRUH LW FDQQRW EH VDLG WKDW
WKH SHWLWLRQHU ZDV HQWLWOHG WR FODLP WKH
EHQHILW XQGHU G\LQJ LQ KDUQHVV UXOHV
PRUH WKDQ RQFH 7KHUHIRUH LW FDQQRW EH
VDLG WKDW WKH SHWLWLRQHU ZDV HQWLWOHG WR
JHW EHQHILW RI G\LQJ LQ KDUQHVV UXOHV IRU
VHFRQG WLPH ZKHQ KH EHFDPH TXDOLILHG
IRU WKH SRVW RI DVVLVWDQW WHDFKHU :H DUH
RI
WKH
YLHZ
WKDW
WKH
FDVH
RI
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU LV IXOO\ FRYHUHG E\ WKH GHFLVLRQ
TXRWHG DERYH DQG WKH MXGJHPHQW RI WKH
OHDUQHG 6LQJOH -XGJH GRHV QRW UHTXLUH
DQ\ LQWHUIHUHQFH LQ VSHFLDO DSSHDO
&DVHV UHIHUUHG

By the Court

1. This special appeal has been filed
by the appellant (petitioner) against the