# Rajkumar Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1447
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-26
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 7539 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajkumar-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54155
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

2 All. Rajkumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1447

23. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1447
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 7539 of 2025
alongwith connected cases

Rajkumar Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
 (a) Whether the requisition sent under the earlier Act of 1982, creates any right on persons who were
included in the panel, if it has not moved even a step forward?
(b) Whether Section 31 of Act of 2023 and Section 6 of U.P. General Clauses Act would give any protection to
petitioners so far as earlier requisition is concerned?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023: Section 31;
Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921: Chapter II; U.P. General Clauses Act of 1904:
Section 6.

The requisition sent earlier does not create a right on persons who were included in the panel
and since it has not moved a step forward, therefore, only by sending requisitions would not
mean that it has created any right or a substantive process was initiated under the earlier Act of
1982, therefore, Repeal and Savings' will not help the case of petitioners. (Para 20)

None of the petitioners have come up with a case that before new Act came into force in the year 2023, they
have approached concerned respondents or this Court to expedite the recruitment process on basis of earlier
requisitions. Apparently, a number of requisitions were sent for appointment of Principals and Headmasters in
the requisition year 2019-20 and 2021-22. Despite after 3 years, no further process was undertaken in
pursuance of said requisitions and resultantly senior most teachers who were working as Officiating Principal
continued to work i.e. it was an advantage to them. (Para 15, 16)

Section 31(2) of the Act of 2023 states that anything done or any action taken under the Acts
referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been done or taken under this Act, as if
the provisions of this Act were in force at all material times, therefore, it would mean that procedure
undertaken in terms of the Act of 1982, would be considered as it was taken under the new Act of 2023 and
since now recruitment process is entirely different and earlier requisition has not forwarded even a step
ahead, therefore, a new requisition was sought. (Para 19)

B. Since Act of 2023 has a different intention and it can be gathered by necessary implication,
therefore, none of the earlier requisitions which were only in the preliminary stage and the
Board has not taken any step on them, therefore it would not create any liability or right in
favour of petitioners as such S.31 of Act of 2023 and S.6 of U.P. General Clauses Act would not
1448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
give any protection to petitioners so far as earlier requisition is concerned, as intention of Act of
2023 is contrary, therefore no case is made out to grant relief to the petitioners. S. 11 of Act of
2023 provides manner of selection that it could be conducted by way of an examination or interview both,
therefore, Court is of the view that Act of 2023 has a new mechanism or procedure for selection. (Para 24)

Section 31(3), which has a reference of S.6 of Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act 1904, states
that repeal of Act of 1982 will not have an adverse effect on general application of said section.
(Para 21)

The savings of S.6 do not apply to some extent or in entirety when the legislative intent is
different. The contrary intent can be expressed or gathered by necessary implication. Further, the ambit of
repeal cannot be wider than the boundary envisaged by the repealing enactment. Therefore, a comprehensive
repeal may be limited if the repealing enactment directly or by necessary implication clamours that it will not
apply to certain matters. (Para 22)

Court applies aforesaid law to present case and also takes note of S.10 of Act of 2023, though it does not
start with a non-obstante clause, but if the words used in that section are read carefully, there will be no
doubt that it provides that Commission would have right to decide eligibility for the purpose of appointment as
well as to decide the procedure of selection of a candidate for direct recruitment. (Para 23)

This Court previously directed Chairperson U.P. Education Service Selection Commission, Prayagraj to take all
endeavour to conclude process for appointment of Head Masters and Principals in an order passed in Nov.,
2025, therefore a direction is now passed that it shall be concluded within a period of 6 months from today.
(Para 25)

Writ petitions disposed of. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation
Development Corporation Vs. Mahesh and Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13093-13094 of 2018 (Para
22)
2. Abhishek Mishra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.& 2 Ors, 2025:AHC:192985 (Para 25)

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023; Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act,
1921; U.P. General Clauses Act of 1904.

List of Keywords
 requisitions, appointment, education, selection, recruitment process, protection.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate
For Respondent(s): C.S.C., Kushmondeya Shahi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Yaseen, Sri Prashant
Shukla and Ms.Diksha Upadhyay on behalf of petitioners, Sri Kushmondeya Shahi on behalf of
respondent no.3, Sri D.P.Singh and Sri Saurabh, learned Standing Counsel.
2 All. Rajkumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1449

2. Petitioners before this Court have claimed that they were eligible for appointment on the
post of Principal and for that procedure was initiated to fill up 884 posts of Principal and 729 posts
of Headmaster in the recruitment year 2019-2020 and 2021-2022, in terms of relevant provisions of
regulation under the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education
Service Selection Board of 1982 however, Board does not commence further process and it
remained pending for almost 2 to 3 years and meanwhile, Uttar Pradesh Education Service
Selection Commission Act, 2023 was enacted and it came into force with effect from 21.8.2023
and subsequently rules thereunder i.e. Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission
Rules, 2023 were also framed.

3. By the enforcement of aforesaid Act, Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection
Board of 1982 was repealed.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances, Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection
Commission took a decision on 9.12.2024, whereby earlier requisition for selection of Principals
and Headmasters which was not commenced except receiving requisitions and accordingly not
concluded under the Repeal Act of 2019 therefore was withdrawn and all earlier requisitions were
declared void-ab-initio and fresh process was directed to commence in terms of the Act of 2023
and rules framed thereunder.

5. It is not under dispute that on basis of earlier requisition even an Advertisement was not
issued, therefore, no progress was made under the Act of 2019 or rules framed thereunder.

6. Petitioners have challenged the decision dated 9.12.2014, mainly on a ground that once a
procedure was initiated under the Act of 2019, it ought to have been continued even after it was
repealed by way of enforcement of new Act of 2023.

7. Admittedly, procedure prescribed under the Act of 2023 is different and it prescribed a open
selection and petitioners have now to go through rigours of open competition, whereas earlier when
panel was to sent, from a particular College, name of two seniormost teachers was also required to
be sent for consideration for post of Principals and Headmasters as the case may be and according
to petitioner , their names were included in the respective panel.

8. Learning Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently referred
Section 31 of the Act of 2023 i.e. 'Repeals and Savings'. For reference, same is reproduced
hereinafter:

"31. Repeal and Savings.-(1) The Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission
Act, 1980, the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Uttar
Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2019 are hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the Acts
referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been done or taken under this Act, as if the
provisions of this Act were in force at all material times.
1450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(3) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the repeal of the Acts referred to in subsection (1) shall not have an adverse effect on the general application of section 6 of the Uttar
Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act no. 1 of 1904) in relation to the enforcement of
provisions."

9. Relevant Regulation under Chapter II of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921
are reproduced hereinafter:

"10. The procedure for filing up the vacancy of the head of institution ant teachers by
direct recruitment in any recognised institution shall be as follows:

Xxx

(2) Notes (1) All vacancies in the post of teachers and the head of the institution existing
at the time of advertisement shall be advertised.

(2) No new post shall be advertised unless sanction of the appropriate authority for the
creation thereof has been received by the management.

(b) The form of application shall be such as may be approved by the Director.

(c) An application by a person employed in an institution and applying for a post
elsewhere or in the same institution shall not be withheld by his employer but shall be forwarded to
the District Inspector of Schools or Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools concerned immediately
and in case of a post in an institution referred to in Section 16-FF to the Manager thereof.

(d) Applications received shall be serially numbered and entered in a register in the form
approved by the Director in the Office of the Inspector and particulars of the candidates noted
under appropriate columns along with quality-point-marks obtained by each candidate. The
quality-point-marks will be awarded to each candidate according to the criteria laid down in
Appendix 'D' preferably by the local retired Gazetted Officers or retired Principals or teachers of
Degree College or University or retired heads of Institutions engaged for the purpose by the
Inspector and checked by the Inspector or an officer of the Department authorised by him in this
behalf. These application forms will be collected by the Committee of Management through the
Manager of the institution from the Office of the Inspector within three days after the expiry of five
days from the last date of receipt of applications notified in the advertisement failing which the
Inspector shall cause the applications to be sent to the Manager of the institution concerned. The
management shall maintain a register likewise. The candidates to be called for interview shall be
selected in the order of quality-pointmarks obtained by them. The number called for interview shall
be seven for each post (the number of applicants permitting) provided that this number may be
increased to accommodate candidates who get equal number of quality-paint-marks in the first
seven places. The Inspector shall send intimation of the date, time and place for holding selection
as may be fixed by him to the Committee of Management through its Manager at least two weeks
before such date. Immediately on receipt of this information, the Manager shall send intimation to
the members of the Selection Committee other than the Experts and issue interview cards to all the
2 All. Rajkumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1451
candidates selected for interview by registered post specifying therein the date, time and place of
holding selection, at least ten days before such selection. The Selection Committee will hold its
sitting for making the selection accordingly. The Inspector shall intimate to the Experts nominated
under Clause (iii) of sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 16-F, as the case may be, the date, time and
place fixed for holding of selection along with the name of the institution, sufficiently in advance of
such date. If on account of any unavoidable reasons, any expert is unable to attend the selection on
the date fixed, the Inspector shall at once arrange for the expert on the waiting list. In the absence
of two experts, the meeting of the Selection Committee shall be postponed and another date shall be
fixed for the same.

(dd) Where the post advertised under Clause (a) is that of Principal of an institution the
two seniormost teachers of such institution in the Lecturer's grade and where the post advertised is
that of Headmasterfor an institution the two seniormost teachers of such institution in the L.T.
Grade who possess the prescribed minimum qualification for such post and have to their credit a
minimum of ten years continuous service in the respective grade, including the period, if any,
during which they have worked temporarily as principal/Headmaster shall also be entitled to be
called for interview for that post even if they do not come within the first seven places under Clause
(d).

10. Relevant sections of Act of 2023 is reproduced hereinafter :

"2(n) 'Teacher' means a person employed for imparting instruction in an institution and
includes a Principal or Vice-Principal or a Headmaster;

10.Determination of Vacancies, Requisition, and Selection Procedure

(1) For the purpose of making an appointment of a teacher or instructor by direct
recruitment, the Appointing Authority or Management or Authorized Officer shall determine the
number of vacancies existing or likely to fall vacant during the year of recruitment and, in the case
of a post other than the post of head of the institution, also determine the number of vacancies to be
reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes of citizens in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation
for Scheduled Castes,

Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (U.P. Act no. 4 of 1994), and
persons belonging to economically weaker sections in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh

Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections) Act, 2020 (U.P. Act no.
10 of 2020) and other directions issued by the Government from time to time, and notify the
vacancies to the Commission in such manner and through such officer or authority as may be
prescribed. The Commission shall decide the eligibility and accordingly advertise the vacancies
received in the manner as may be prescribed.

(2) The procedure of selection of candidates for direct recruitment to the posts of
teachers or instructors shall be such as may be prescribed.
1452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(3)Regarding appointment in religious and linguistic minority educational institutions for
maintaining quality of education, process of selection shall be completed by compulsorily inviting
educationist of that particular religion and language (having knowledge of theology and culture)
as experts.

11. Panel/List of Candidates- (1) The Commission shall, as soon as may be, after a
vacancy is notified under sub-section (1) of section 10, conduct, wherever necessary, examinations
or interviews or conduct the examination and interview of the candidates and prepare a panel/list
of those found most suitable for appointment.

(2) The panel referred to in sub-section (1) shall be forwarded to the prescribed officer or
Authorized Officer referred to in sub-section (1) of section 10 in such manner as may be
prescribed.

(3) After the receipt of the panel under sub-section (2), the prescribed officer or
Authorized Officer shall, in the prescribed manner, intimate the Appointing Authority of the names
of the selected candidates in respect of the vacancies notified under sub-section (1) of section 10.

(4) The Appointing Authority shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt
of such information, issue appointment letters to such selected candidates and facilitate the
selected candidate to join the duties in the prescribed manner.

(5) Where such selected candidate fails to join the post of a teacher or instructor in such
institution within the time allowed in the appointment letter or within such extended time as the
Appointing Authority may allow in this behalf, or where such candidate is otherwise not available
for appointment, the Authorized Officer shall, on the request of Management, intimate in the
prescribed manner, fresh name or names from the panel/list forwarded by the Commission under
sub-section (2). Such time limit shall be up to a maximum of one year after the date of issuing of the
appointment letter.

(6) If the Management/ Appointing Authority fails to issue appointment letter to a
selected candidate on reasonable grounds (the Management /Appointing Authority is to mention
the appropriate reason) then a panel of remaining candidates from the list/panel of candidates
under sub-section (1) will be made available to the Institute only once. Still, if the
Management/Appointing Authority fails to issue appointment letter then the concerned post will be
abolished as per the prescribed method.

12. Appointments to be made only on the Recommendations of the Commission - Every
appointment of a teacher or instructor shall be made by the Appointing Authority only on the
recommendation of the Commission, and any appointment made in contravention of the provisions
of this Act shall be void: -

Provided that the appointment of a teacher or instructor by transfer from one institution
to another or by promotion in any institution or the appointment of a teacher or instructor as a
2 All. Rajkumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1453
dependent of an employee dying in harness cases may be made as per the provisions given in the
relevant Acts or rules or regulations."

11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that requisition sent
under provisions of Act of 1982 are protected by virtue of Section 31 of the Act of 2023 and further
proceedings will be required to be undertaken under provisions of Act of 1982 only and not in
terms of Act of 2023, otherwise petitioners who are senior most Assistant Teachers in their
respective schools and their names were sent in the panel in the requisition will now have to face
either written examination and subsequent interviews as decided by the Commission under the Act
of 2023. He also refers Section 6 of U.P. General Clauses Act of 1904 that it also protects earlier
requisition.

12. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that by way of Act of 2023, a
different process is required to be adopted for selection of Principals and Head Masters.

13. Earlier requisition was not proceeded further effectively, except requisition sought by the
Board under the Act of 1982, and since it has not proceeded even a step forward, therefore, it is not
required that said requisition be carry forwarded in terms of Repealed Act of 1982.

14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

15. It is not under dispute that number of requisitions were sent for appointment of Principals
and Headmasters in the requisition year 2019-20 and 2021-22. Further it is also not disputed that
despite after 3 years, no further process was undertaken in pursuance of said requisitions and
resultantly senior most teachers who were working as Officiating Principal continued to work i.e. it
was an advantage to them.

16. None of the petitioners have come up with a case that before new Act came into force in
the year 2023, they have approached concerned respondents or this Court to expedite the
recruitment process on basis of earlier requisitions.

17. Learned Senior Counsel has not disputed that now under the provisions of Act of 2023, a
new regime has taken place that Assistant Teachers who were either working as Officiating
Principal or not, have to participate in the open examination either by way of a written examination
or subsequent interview for appointment of Principal or Headmaster as the case may be.

18. Section 31 of the Act of 2023 provides for Repeal and Savings according to which Uttar
Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Uttar Pradesh Education
Service Selection Commission Act, 2019 was repealed.

19. Sub-section 2 of Section 31 of the Act of 2023 states that anything done or any action
taken under the Acts referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been done or taken
under this Act, as if the provisions of this Act were in force at all material times, therefore, it would
mean that procedure undertaken in terms of the Act of 1982, would be considered as it was taken
1454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under the new Act of 2023 and since now recruitment process is entirely different and earlier
requisition has not forwarded even a step ahead, therefore, a new requisition was sought.

20. The requisition sent earlier does not create a right on persons who were included in the
panel and since it has not moved a step forward, therefore, only by sending requisitions would not
mean that it has created any right or a substantive process was initiated under the earlier Act of
1982, therefore, Repeal and Savings' will not help the case of petitioners.

21. Court also takes note of sub-section 3 of Section 31 which has a reference of Section 6 of
Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act 1904 that repeal of Act of 1982 will not have an adverse effect
on general application of said section.

22. In this regard Court takes note of few paragraphs of a judgment passed by Supreme Court
in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13093-13094 of 2018, The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd
Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs.
Mahesh and Ors, and its relevant paragraph being 7 is reproduced hereinafter:

'7. Before we interpret the above provisions, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 6
of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which deals with the effect of repeal of any statute or regulation
and reads:

'6. Effect of repeal''Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the
commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then,
unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not'

(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or

(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or
suffered thereunder; or

(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under
any enactment so repealed; or

(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence
committed against any enactment so repealed; or

(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right,
privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such
investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such
penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not
been passed.'

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act interdicts the common law principle that an
enactment after repeal is ineffective as if it had never existed, except as to matters past and closed.
Section 6 is a general transitory provision that resurrects operation of the repealed law in terms of
2 All. Rajkumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1455
comprehensive and broadly worded clauses (a) to (e). Clauses (b), (c) and (e) of Section 6, in
particular, state that the repeal does not affect anything duly done or suffered under the repealed
enactment; any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired or accrued under any repealed
enactment; or any investigation, legal proceedings or remedy in respect of any such right,
privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, etc. Legal proceedings, investigation or remedy may be
instituted, continued or enforced, and any penalty, punishment or forfeiture may be enforced as if
the repealed Act or regulation were still in existence notwithstanding its repeal. However, the
savings of Section 6 do not apply to some extent or in entirety when the legislative intent is
different. The contrary intent can be expressed or gathered by necessary implication. Further, the
ambit of repeal cannot be wider than the boundary envisaged by the repealing enactment.
Therefore, a comprehensive repeal may be limited if the repealing enactment directly or by
necessary implication clamours that it will not apply to certain matters.'

23. Court applies aforesaid law in the facts and circumstances of present case and also takes
note of Section 10 of Act of 2023, though it does not starts with a non-obstante clause, but if the
words used in that section are read carefully, there will be no doubt that it provides that
Commission would have right to decide eligibility for the purpose of appointment as well as to
decide the procedure of selection of a candidate for direct recruitment.

24. Similarly, Section 11 of Act of 2023 also provides manner of selection that it could
be conducted by way of an examination or interview both, therefore, Court is of the view
that Act of 2023 has a new mechanism or procedure for selection and since earlier
requisition has not forwarded substantially, therefore, it would not be considered that it has
created any right, privilege or obligation for the State to continue procedure in terms of
earlier requisition when the Act of 2023, provides absolutely new regime, therefore, Court
is of opinion that since Act of 2023 has a different intention and it can be gathered by
necessary implication, therefore, Court is of firm opinion that none of the earlier
requisitions which were only in the preliminary stage and the Board has not taken any step
on the requisition, therefore it would not create any liability or right in favour of
petitioners as such Section 31 of Act of 2023 and Section 6 of U.P. General Clauses Act
would not give any protection to petitioners so far as earlier requisition is concerned, as
intention of Act of 2023 is contrary, therefore no case is made out to grant relief to the
petitioners.

25. Court also takes note that this Court has passed a direction in Abhishek Mishra & Anr.
Vs. State of U.P.& 2 Ors, 2025:AHC:192985, wherein Chairperson U.P. Education Service
Selection Commission, Prayagraj was directed to take all endeavour to conclude process for
appointment of Head Masters and Principals and since that order was passed in November, 2025,
therefore a direction is now passed that it shall be concluded within a period of 6 months from
today.

26. All the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

27. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
----------
1456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 2 ILRA 1456
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ A No. 14985 of 2025
Alongwith
Writ A No. 9584 of 2025

Dr. Aparajita Chaudhary ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Legality of the order not appointing the senior most Professor on the post of the Director-cum-Professor.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Appointment - Post of Director-cum-Professor in Dept. of Ophthalmology at
Motilal Nehru Medical College - Entitlement of senior most Professor - Government Order dated
26.07.1976 was issued creating the nomenclature of Director-cum-Professor for the Head of
Department - Government Order dated 24.03.2021 was also came into effect whereby the post
of Head of Department was directed to be filed on rotational basis from amongst the senior
Professors - Effect : (E-1)
Held : From the Government Order dated 26.7.1976, it becomes categorical clear that in the
nomination/designation of a person as Director-cum-Professor, the person must be Professor/Senior professor
of the Institute and he is also required to be the Head of Department as there is no separate post of Director
created in the Institute. Only the nomenclature of the Head of Department and Professor was created as
Director-cum-Professor. The appointment Dr. Santosh Kumar to the post of Head of Department of the
institute in consonance with the Government Order dated 24.03.2021 with regard to which there is no dispute
between the parties. Therefore, Dr. Santosh Kumar being the Head of Department was entitled to be
nominated/designated as Director-cum-Professor of the Institute, which has rightly been done initially vide
order dated 24.4.2025 and subsequently vide order dated 29.8.2025 - Therefore, this Court does not find any
illegality on the designation of Dr. Santosh Kumar, Professor and Head of Department of the Ophthalmology
Department of the Motilal Nehru Medical College, which is known as Manohar Das Regional Eye Institute,
Allahabad as the Director-cum-Professor of the said Institute. [Para 23 and 24]

List of Acts
Government Order dated 26.07.1976, Government Order dated 05.04.2006, and Government Order dated
24.03.2021.

List of Keywords
Designation, Merger, Nomenclature, Appointment, Head of Department, Independent representation, Senior
most Professor, Recognition as a separate institution, Upgrade, Retirement, Special pay scale and allowances.

Case Arising From
Order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Principal of the Motilal Nehru Medical College, Prayagraj, and Order
dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Special Secretary, Government of U.P.