# Rajnish Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 556
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-18
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 7114 of 2023
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajnish-kumar-pandey-v-union-of-india-ors-53223
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Service Law - Regularization - University
Teachers - Appointment Without Regular
Selection - U.P. State Universities Act,
1973 - Sections 2(19) & 31(3)(c) [as
substituted by U.P. Act 23 of 2004] -
Allahabad University Act, 2005 - Sections
3(u), 3(w), 29, 31 & 45 - University
Statute - Clauses 15(2) & 15(7)(iv) -
Petitioner was initially appointed as a
Research Fellow (JRF/SRF) in 1992. He
sought to be treated as a part-time
teacher under para 10.02 of the Statute.
He sought regularisation under Clause
15(7)(iv) of the University Statute framed
under the Central Act. Held: Clause 15(2)
of the Statute lays down the mandatory
composition of the Selection Committee
for appointment to the post of Lecturer,
which must include: Dean of Faculty, Head
of Department, and three subject experts
appointed by the Executive Council from a
panel recommended by the Academic
Council. The Selection Committee that
considered the petitioner's case did not
conform to the prescribed composition
and thus could not be treated as a regular
Selection Committee under Clause 15(2).
Consequently, the benefit under Clause
15(7)(iv)-which
permits
permanent
appointment without further reference to
a Selection Committee-could not be
extended to the petitioner. The Court held
that the essential conditions under Clause
15(7)(iv) were not satisfied, and hence,
the petitioner's claim for regularisation
stood rejected. (Paras 26, 31)

Dismissed. (E-5)

## Text

_Characters 0–39,651 of 44,174. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39651 for what follows._

556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Pandey(Supra), no punishment can be
awarded
to
petitioner.
Accordingly,
impugned order dated 21.06.2023 cannot
be sustained and is hereby set aside.

24. It is directed that petitioner shall
be paid the entire deducted amount of
pension along with interest @ 9 % from the
due date to the date of actual payment.

25. Writ petition is allowed with all
consequential benefits. No order as to costs.

26. So far as Prayer No. (iii) is
concerned, petitioner is given liberty to file
representation before respondent No. 1 within
two weeks along with certified copy of this
order. In case any such representation is filed,
respondent No. 1 is directed to consider and
decide the same in accordance with law,
maximum within a period of eight weeks
thereafter.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 556
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 7114 of 2023

Rajnish Kumar Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, Sri Shrawan Kumar
Tripathi, Sri G.K. Singh (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Kunal Ravi Singh

Service Law - Regularization - University
Teachers - Appointment Without Regular
Selection - U.P. State Universities Act,
1973 - Sections 2(19) & 31(3)(c) [as
substituted by U.P. Act 23 of 2004] -
Allahabad University Act, 2005 - Sections
3(u), 3(w), 29, 31 & 45 - University
Statute - Clauses 15(2) & 15(7)(iv) -
Petitioner was initially appointed as a
Research Fellow (JRF/SRF) in 1992. He
sought to be treated as a part-time
teacher under para 10.02 of the Statute.
He sought regularisation under Clause
15(7)(iv) of the University Statute framed
under the Central Act. Held: Clause 15(2)
of the Statute lays down the mandatory
composition of the Selection Committee
for appointment to the post of Lecturer,
which must include: Dean of Faculty, Head
of Department, and three subject experts
appointed by the Executive Council from a
panel recommended by the Academic
Council. The Selection Committee that
considered the petitioner's case did not
conform to the prescribed composition
and thus could not be treated as a regular
Selection Committee under Clause 15(2).
Consequently, the benefit under Clause
15(7)(iv)-which
permits
permanent
appointment without further reference to
a Selection Committee-could not be
extended to the petitioner. The Court held
that the essential conditions under Clause
15(7)(iv) were not satisfied, and hence,
the petitioner's claim for regularisation
stood rejected. (Paras 26, 31)

Dismissed. (E-5)

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

1. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Santosh
Kumar
Pandey,
learned
counsel
for
petitioner and Sri Kunal Ravi Singh,
learned counsel for respondents- 2 to 6.

2. Petitioner has not disclosed in
specific words that how he entered in
Allahabad University i.e. he has not
disclosed specifically that he was initially
3 All. Rajnish Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India & Ors.
557
appointed as a Research Fellow
(JRF/SRF) in Department of Philosophy in
1992. Petitioner has not annexed any
document to that effect, though during
argument, some other documents were
referred which indicate that he was an
Research Fellow in the said Department.

3. The averments in writ petition
commence with an assertion that petitioner
and other similarly situated Research
Fellows were engaged classes apart from
their own duties in Department vide a
notification dated 18.01.1992 and he has
declared that after 19.01.1992, he was
assigned work of teaching on regular basis.
For reference, referred notification dated
18.01.1992 issued by Head of Philosophy
Department,
Allahabad
University
is
quoted hereinafter :-

"All JRFs, SRFs, Research
scholars are required to engage
classes as per time table, apart from
their
other
duties
in
the
department."

4. A case is set up by the petitioner
and vehemently submitted by learned
Senior
Advocate
that
by
imparting
instructions in classes, petitioner would be
a 'teacher' as defined under Section 2(19)
of U.P. State University Act, 1973. For
reference, said provision is quoted below :-

"2 (19) 'teacher' in relation
to the provisions of this Act except
Chapter XI-A, means a person
employed in a University or in an
institute or in a constituent or
affiliated or associated college of a
University
for
imparting
instructions
or
guiding
or
conducting research in any subject
or
course
approved
by
that
University and includes a Principal
or Director."

5. Learned Senior Advocate has
also referred para 10.02 of the Statute and
its provision that persons working as
Research Fellow or Research Assistants
may be called upon to act as 'part time
teacher' and therefore, he submitted that
since petitioner has started taking classes
since 19.01.1992 soon after notification
dated 18.01.1992, he would also be
considered as 'part time teacher'. For
reference, said paragraph is reproduced
hereinafter :-

"10.02 Teachers of the
University shall be appointed in the
subjects on whole time basis in the
scales of pay approved by the State
Government:

Provided that part time lecturers
may be appointed in subjects in
which in the opinion of the
Academic Council such lecturers
are required in the interest of
teaching or for other reasons. Such
part time lecturers may receive
salary ordinarily not exceeding one
half of the initial salary or the scale
for the post to which they are
appointed. Persons working as
Research Fellows or as Research
Assistants may be called upon to
act as part time lecturers."

6. Learned Senior Advocate has
further submitted that the petitioner was a
'part time teacher' since 1992 and,
therefore, as he would be within cut off
date (31.12.1997) and accordingly, he was
entitled
for
substantive
appointment
without
reference
to
the
Selection
Committee and for that learned Senior
558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Advocate has referred Section 31(3)(c) of
Act of 1973 as substituted by Uttar Pradesh
Act No. 23 of 2004 (w.e.f. 20.05.2004). For
reference, Section 31(3)(c) as substituted
on 20.05.2004 is quoted below :-

"31(3)(c) :- Any teacher of
the University who was appointed
as [Associate Professors] part time
[Associate Professors] 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)
possesses
the
qualifications required for regular
appointment 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
substantive
appointment under this clause shall
cease to hold such post on such
date as the Executive Council may
specify."
7. Learned Senior Advocate by
referring documents has further submitted
that petitioner and similarly situated
persons
have
represented
for
their
regularisation in terms of above provisions
and
to
consider
their
grievance,
a
Committee
was
also
constituted
by
Executive
Council's
decision
dated
10.06.2004 and 19.12.2004 and it appears
that nothing further happened and again it
was resolved to constitute a Committee for
purposes of ascertaining suitability. It may
be noted that on 23.06.2005, the University
of Allahabad Act, 2005 came to be
enforced, which has different definition of
'Teacher' (Section 3(u)) and 'University
appointed Teacher' (Section 3(w)). For
reference, both Sections are quoted below
:-

"3(u)
"teacher"
means
Professors, Readers and Lecturers
appointed or recognized by the
University;
3(w) "University appointed
teacher" means a teacher appointed
by the University for imparting
instruction and conducting research
in the University or any other
college or institution maintained by
the University;"

8. It was further argued that on one
hand, matter of regularisation kept pending
and on other hand, fresh selection process
was initiated. The petitioner has challenged
it. In paragraph 25 of writ petition, it was
disclosed that "claim of regularization was
kept pending and fresh selection process
was initiated as such writ petitions were
filed challenging the selection however
High Court vide its order dated 28.03.2014
did not intervene on the ground that some
of the teachers were engaged after year
2000 and Ordinance No. 44 was not
3 All. Rajnish Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India & Ors.
559
challenged.".
Petitioner
has
neither
disclosed details of said writ petition nor
placed a copy of order dated 28.03.2014 on
record, which appears to be an attempt to
mislead. A copy of said order was later on
filed through an annexure with a counter
affidavit filed by the University on
13.07.2023.

9. I have carefully perused the said
judgment, since it was heavily relied upon
by learned counsel for University that issue
of consideration for regularisation was
rejected therein. From said judgment,
following facts are revealed :-

"a. Petitioner herein has not
filed earlier a single writ petition
but has filed 3 writ petitions along
with 2 other petitioners vide Writ A
Nos. 64494/2008, 63695/2010 and
18243/2012.

b. Details of all 3 writ
petitions are mentioned in above
referred order dated 28.03.2014
whereby all 3 writ petitions were
dismissed and relevant part thereof
are mentioned as follows :-

Writ A No. 63695/2010
2nd writ petition no.63695
of 2010 has been filed by Dr. Uma
Kant, Rajnish Kumar Pandey, Dr.
Satish Kumar Singh, Dr. Prem
Chandra Mishra and Dr. Pankaj
Mishra, they seek a writ of
mandamus
commanding
the
Allahabad University to consider
the claim of the petitioners for
regularization
pursuant
to
the
decision taken by the Executive
Council in its meeting held on
29.10.2009
and
as
per
the
assurance
given
by
the Vice
Chancellor in the meeting of the
Executive Council on 07.08.2010.

Writ A No. 18243/2012
Dr. Uma Kant, Rajnish
Kumar Pandey, Dr. Satish Kumar
Singh, Dr. Prem Chandra Mishra
and Dr. Pankaj Mishra who had
filed writ petition no.63695 of
2010, have filed this writ petition
for quashing of the advertisement
dated 14.02.2012 as well as for
declaring the
cut
of
date
i.e.
31.12.1997
mentioned
under
Section 31 (3) (c) of the U.P. State
Universities Act, 1973, as arbitrary
and void. The petitioners have also
prayed for quashing the circular
dated 04.10.2002.
c.
Relevant
part
of
judgment in reference to leading
Writ
A
No.
64494/2008
is
mentioned below :-

Writ A No. 64494/2008
"By means of this writ
petition,
the
petitioners
have
prayed, for quashing of the order of
the
Vice
Chancellor
dated
03.12.2008 and for a mandamus
directing
the
University
respondents to comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No.44 and
to permit the petitioners to continue
as Guest Faculty Lecturers without
facing any fresh interview/selection
at least for a period of three years
and they may be paid salary
accordingly.

We may record that the
unamended Ordinance No.44 of the
Central University provides that
Guest Faculty Lecturer shall not
continue after the terminal date of
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the academic year but if the
Academic Unit, so desires, it may
continue the Guest Faculty Lecturer
earlier
selected
in
the
next
consecutive
academic
session
without recourse to fresh procedure
of the selection but this extension
shall
not
be
beyond
three
consecutive years.
The Ordinance No.44 is not
under challenge in the present writ
petition. None of the conditions
mentioned
therein
have
been
questioned
on
any
ground
whatsoever. The prayer in the
petition is that the petitioners may
be allowed to continue for three
years on the strength of the
selections dated 22.09.2007. This
period
of
three
years
would
admittedly expire in the year 2010.
Therefore,
for
all
practical
purposes, the writ petition has
become infructuous, irrespective of
the stand taken by the University
that Ordinance No.44 itself has
been amended on 20.01.2009.
We may also refer to the
judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Dr. Kirti
Raje Singh Vs. University of
Allahabad and others reported in
2010 (6) ADJ 860 (DB), wherein it
has been held that a Guest Faculty
Lecturer has no right to continue
till the regular selected candidates
join or to claim regularization.
After the aforesaid order
has been passed, Sri K.C. Shukla,
advocate appeared and made a
statement that the petitioners have
filed amendment applications dated
07.08.2013 and dated 22.07.2013
for an additional relief i.e. for a
writ of mandamus directing the
respondents not to interfere in
working of petitioners till regular
selected candidate joins. Copy of
the amendment applications has
been handed over to the Court
which is taken on record. Office
may
trace
out
the
aforesaid
amendment applications and place
the same on records.
There is absolutely no
mention as up to what date
petitioners have worked after 2008.
Ordinance No.44 as it then stood
has not been questioned in the
amendment applications also. The
rights of a Guest Lecturer have
already been examined in the case
of Dr. Kirti Raje Singh (supra). For
the same reason, the prayer made
under the amendment application
cannot be granted.""

10. The aforesaid judgment has
rejected the claim of the petitioner for
consideration of regularisation as prayed, in
specific words and therefore its copy ought
to have been placed by the petitioner and
since it was not placed, therefore, the
petition is liable to be dismissed on a single
ground that he has not approached this
Court with clean hands. In regard to
doctrine of "clean hands", a judgment
passed by Supreme Court in K. Jayaram
and others vs. Bangalore Development
Authority and others, (2022) 12 SCC 815
would
be
relevant
and
its
relevant
paragraphs are extracted herein-after :-

"10. It is well-settled that
the jurisdiction exercised by the
High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution
of
India
is
extraordinary,
equitable
and
discretionary and it is imperative
that the petitioner approaching the
3 All. Rajnish Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India & Ors.
561
writ court must come with clean
hands and put forward all facts
before the court without concealing
or suppressing anything. A litigant
is bound to state all facts which are
relevant to the litigation. If he
withholds some vital or relevant
material in order to gain advantage
over the other side then he would
be guilty of playing fraud with the
court as well as with the opposite
parties
which
cannot
be
countenanced.
14. It is necessary for us to
state here that in order to check
multiplicity
of
proceedings
pertaining to the same subjectmatter and more importantly to
stop the menace of soliciting
inconsistent
orders
through
different
judicial
forums
by
suppressing material facts either by
remaining silent or by making
misleading
statements
in
the
pleadings in order to escape the
liability
of
making
a
false
statement, we are of the view that
the parties have to disclose the
details of all legal proceedings and
litigations either past or present
concerning any part of the subjectmatter of dispute which is within
their knowledge. In case, according
to the parties to the dispute, no
legal
proceedings
or
court
litigations were or are pending,
they have to mandatorily state so in
their pleadings in order to resolve
the dispute between the parties in
accordance with law."

11. The following part of rejoinder
affidavit would be relevant that instead of
petitioner to extend explanation for not
disclosing judgment dated 28.03.2014, he
still tried to mislead by stating that said
judgment is not applicable to present case,
without referring any finding returned
therein. Para 8 of rejoinder affidavit is
quoted below :-

"8. That it is relevant to
state here that the respondent no. 2
to 6 are erroneously relying upon
the judgment dated 28.03.2014 of
this Hon'ble Court in Writ A 63695
of 2010 as the said judgment had
no application to the facts of the
present case in as much as the court
held that provisions of Clause 6-H
of
Ordinance
44
was
not
challenged which provided that
Guest Lecturers cannot continue
beyond three years as such the writ
petition which was filed in the year
2010 had become infructuous.
It has further been observed
by the Hon'ble Court that "while
omitting the Government Order
dated 09th October, 2000 the State
decided to provide substantive
appointment by executive council
to such teachers of the University,
who were appointed as Part Time
Lecturers
on
or
before
31st
December, 1997". The division
bench has further recorded the
contention of the Standing Counsel
to the effect that "This date of 31st
December, 1997 has been chosen,
according to the Standing Counsel,
with reference to the issuance of
the Government Order dated 09th
October, 2000 in as much as
subsequent to 2000 the University
cannot offer appointment as part
time Lecturers in terms of the
Government Order and on that date
the
earlier
appointees
would
complete nearly 3 years of service
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
so as to have some semblance of
continuity or a right to be offered
substantive appointment.""

12. Learned Senior Advocate for
petitioner has also tried to cover up above
facts by stating that petitioner's case has
now been liable to consider in accordance
with Section 31(3)(c) of State Act, since it
was accepted that he was working as Part
Time Lecturer in the Department of
Philosophy of University of Allahabad
w.e.f. 19.01.1992 and for that learned
Senior Advocate has referred an Office
Order
dated
05.09.2019
issued
by
Registrar, University of Allahabad as well
as a Corrigendum dated 30.07.2019 that the
petitioner would be entitled for full
salary/emolument as an Assistant Professor,
however, without any basis and without
putting again before Executive Council and
without putting petitioner on notice, the
office order dated 05.04.2019 and its
corrigendum
dated
30.07.2019
was
withdrawn by a subsequent order dated
14.02.2020 issued by Registrar, University
of Allahabad. Learned Senior Advocate has
also referred Agenda No. IV of 55th
Meeting of Executive Council dated
10.04.2019 (in regard to petitioner) and that
it was approved and same is still in
existence.

13. Learned Senior Advocate has
further referred a report of 3 Members'
Committee dated 17.12.2018 wherein, it
was
specifically
mentioned
that
petitioner was a selected candidate on a
post of 'Guest Faculty' against 08
vacancies in department by a Selection
Committee
dated
22.09.2007,
duly
approved on 25.09.2007 by the then Vice
Chancellor. The Selection Committee
was comprised of Chairman and 2 other
Members.
14. In aforesaid circumstances, the
petitioner has approached this Court against
aforesaid order dated 14.02.2020 vide Writ
A No. 3177 of 2020 and it was disposed of
vide order dated 28.11.2022 whereby
impugned order was set aside with an
observation
that
now
issue
of
regularization, if at all, will be decided only
by Executive Council in terms of Statute
15(7)(iv) of the University framed under
the Central Act. Learned Senior Advocate
has
referred
following
part
of
said
judgment. It is to note that outcome of
earlier
litigation
(judgment
dated
28.03.2014 passed in 3 writ petitions filed
by the petitioners) was not brought into
knowledge of that coordinate Bench :-

"25. As noted above, up to
the date of enforcement of the
Central Act, no better right or status
had been acquired by the petitioner
as a regular employee of the
University. The first Resolution
passed by the Executive Council to
deal with the rights being claimed
by
the
petitioner
is
dated
08.12.2011. It authorized the Vice
Chancellor
to
constitute
the
Committee to examine the cases of
regularization of certain teaching
faculty
including
the
present
petitioner. That document itself
makes it plain, no status had been
acquired by the petitioner up to that
date as a regular teaching faculty.
Once that fact situation becomes
plainly apparent on the face of the
record, it cannot be gain said that
the petitioner was entitled to
automatic regularisation by virtue
of Section 5(d) of the Central Act.
As to the further submission that
there existed an earlier Resolution
of
the
Executive
Council
to
3 All. Rajnish Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India & Ors.
563
regularize all teachers, there is no
reference to that in the resolutions
of the Executive Council or of the
Committee (that form the sheet
anchor of the case now set up by
the petitioner).
26. Even then, the claim of
automatic regularisation is defeated
upon parallel claim set up by the
petitioner claiming appointment as
Guest Faculty by the regular
Selection
Committee,
on
22.09.2007. That engagement arose
to the petitioner after enforcement
of the Central Act. If the petitioner
claims prior regularization under
the State Act, he could never have
sought engagement as a Guest
Faculty at the same University,
subsequently. Having obtained that
engagement in that capacity, it is
too late in the day for the petitioner
to turn around and claim any higher
status conferred on him prior to that
date.
27. Under Statute 15.7(IV)
as framed under the 'Central Act', a
teaching faculty engaged on a
temporary post may be regularized
subsequently if such post becomes
permanently vacant or another
permanent post of the same rank
and grade become available in the
same cadre. In that case, the
Executive Council may appoint
such teacher on permanent basis in
such department without further
reference to the regular Selection
Committee.
28. For reason of that
material difference in language of
Statute 15.7(iv) of the Statutes, the
claim of continuity would require
further consideration. The Selection
Committee in its resolution dated
17.12.2018 has clearly reached a
conclusion that the petitioner had
continuously
taught
at
the
University in the department of
Philosophy,
since
his
initial
engagement on 19.1.1992. It also
found, that engagement was made
under the 'State Act' and there was
no defect in the constitution of the
Selection Committee, at that stage.
29. All that survives for
consideration is whether a post on
which the petitioner had been
initially appointed had become
substantively
vacant
and
was
available or any further permanent
post of same rank and grade had
become available in the department
of Philosophy. Plainly, that has
escaped
consideration
of
the
Committee in its Resolution dated
17.12.2018.
Arising
therefrom,
Executive Council has also not
considered that issue.

30.
Accordingly,
order
dated 14.02.2020 passed by the
Registrar of the University is set
aside. If at all, the matter has to be
examined by the Executive Council
if the post on which the petitioner
had been initially appointed in the
year 1992 had became vacant on
substantive basis and was available
(at present), or if any other post in
the same pay and grade was
substantively
vacant
in
the
department of Philosophy on which
the petitioner could be regularized
in terms of Statute 15.7(IV) of the
University
framed
under
the
'Central Act'. That exercise may be
completed
by
the
Executive
Council, within a period of two
months from today."
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15. In pursuance of above order, a
Committee was constituted on 12.01.2023
and its report was submitted before the
Executive Council's meeting held on
23.03.2023 vide Agenda No. 06/2013
wherein it was accepted and it was resolved
that the petitioner shall not continue
teaching in any capacity.

16. The order dated 07.04.2023 is
impugned in present writ petition along
with resolution. For reference, impugned
order, as communicated to petitioner, is
reproduced hereinafter :-

"No.05/R/1185/2023 Date
07th April, 2023
To,
Dr. Rajnish Kumar Pandey,
Department of Philosophy,
University of Allahabad.
Subject:- In compliance of
the order dated 28th November,
2022 of Hon'ble High Court passed
in Writ Petition No. 3177/2020
Sir,
In pursuance of the order of
the
High
Court
dated
28th
November,2023 a committee was
constituted vide office order No.
05/R/23/2023, dt. 12 January, 2023.
The report of the committee was
then placed before the Executive
Council in its meeting held on 23
March, 2023 vide agenda No.
06/73
wherein
after
due
consideration and deliberation over
the
report
of
the
committee,
especially in view of the fact that
you have never faced a regular
selection committee and hence it is
not possible to consider your claim
for regularization under any of the
provisions including that of Statute
15[7] (iv), of the University of
Allahabad Act, the EC has resolved
as under:-
Resolution No. 06/73:
In pursuance of the High
Court's order dt. 28.11.2022 in the
writ petition no. 3177/2020 in the
matter of Dr. Rajnish Kumar
Pandev,
a
committee
was
constituted vide office order no.
05/R/23/2023 dt 12th January, 2023
comprising
of
Hon'ble
Justice
Shishir
Kumar
(former
Judge,
Allahabad High Court) (Chairman
of the committee). Prof. Pankaj
Kumar, Dean College Development
(member) and Dr. Haribansh Singh,
Assistant Professor. Department of
Law (Convener).
The
report
of
the
committee
was
read
out
by
Secretary,
Executive
Council
before the EC member. On the
basis of the report, it is brought to
light that claim of regularization of
Dr. Rajnish Kumar Pandey has
been
rejected
due
to
nonapplicability
of
U.P.
State
University Act 1973 (i.e. old Act)
& Section 5(d), Section 45(2) &
Statutes 15(7) (iv) of the New Act
and Statutes.
As far as the question of
the payment to Dr. Rajnish Kumar
Pandey is concerned, it is clear that
he has a status of Guest Faculty
only, hence the payment to him
shall be made as per the UGC
norms applicable to payment to
Guest Faculty for the time period
from which his payment was
stopped
by
the
then
Vice
Chancellor till the present day.
After detailed discussion,
the Executive Council unanimously
approved
the
report
of
the
3 All. Rajnish Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India & Ors.
565
committee and also resolved that
Dr.
Rajnish
Kumar
Pandey,
however, now shall not continue
teaching in any capacity in the
University of Allahabad.
This is for your kind
information.
Regards,
Sd.
07.04.2023
Registrar"

17. The argument that petitioner
could still be considered under old Act has
already been rejected that his case could
not be better than the observation made by
coordinate Bench in judgment dated
28.11.2022
that
he
now
could
be
considered only in terms of 15.7 (iv) of
Statute for substantive appointment. For
reference, relevant paragraph no. 27 of said
judgment is quoted hereinafter :-

"27.
Under
Statute
15.7(IV) as framed under the
'Central Act', a teaching faculty
engaged on a temporary post may
be regularized subsequently if such
post becomes permanently vacant
or another permanent post of the
same rank and grade become
available in the same cadre. In that
case, the Executive Council may
appoint such teacher on permanent
basis in such department without
further reference to the regular
Selection Committee.
28. For reason of that
material difference in language of
Statute 15.7(iv) of the Statutes, the
claim of continuity would require
further consideration. The Selection
Committee in its resolution dated
17.12.2018 has clearly reached a
conclusion that the petitioner had
continuously
taught
at
the
University in the department of
Philosophy,
since
his
initial
engagement on 19.1.1992. It also
found, that engagement was made
under the 'State Act' and there was
no defect in the constitution of the
Selection Committee, at that stage."

18. Learned Senior Advocate for
petitioner has also referred that earlier, a 3
Members' Committee was constituted and a
report was submitted which was considered
by Executive Council in its meeting dated
17.12.2018, wherein minutes of Selection
Committee
dated
22.09.2007
was
mentioned that petitioner was one of
selected candidates against 08 vacancies in
the
department
and
petitioner
was
recommended for appointment and after
judgment of this Court dated 28.11.2022,
said report was upheld as well as he has
faced
Selection
Committee,
therefore,
reasons assigned in impugned order are
legally unsustainable.

19. Learned Senior Advocate has
referred Section 45 of the Act of 2005
which provides 'Transitional Provisions'
and referred its clause-2 that in given set of
circumstances, since Ordinance are not
made, therefore, case of petitioner still
could be considered in accordance with
provisions of Statute and Ordinance was
made immediately before commencement
of 'Act of 2005/Central Act' under the
provisions of U.P. State Universities Act,
1973. For reference, sub-clause 2 of
Section 45 is quoted below :-

"45.
Transitional
provisions.-
(1)
(2) Till such time as the
first Ordinances are not made under
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sub-section (2) of section 29, in
respect of the matters that are to be
provided for by the Ordinances
under this Act and Statutes, the
relevant provisions of the Statutes
and
the
Ordinances
made
immediately
before
the
commencement of this Act under
the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh
State
Universities
Act,
1973
(President's Act 10 of 1973) shall
be applicable insofar as they are not
inconsistent with the provisions of
this Act and the Statutes."

20. Learned Senior Advocate has
also placed reliance upon judgments of this
Court in P.K. Malik vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2005 (6) AWC 5945(FB); Pankaj
Kumar vs. University of Allahabad and
others,
(1993)
1
UPLBEC
544);
Manshyam Verma and another vs.
University of Allahabad and others, Writ
A No. 50303 of 2015 decided on
18.12.2017; Dr. Rajendra Bahadur Singh
and others vs. State of U.P., 2021 (6) ADJ
602 (LB); Dr. Sangita Srivastava vs.
University of Allahabad and others, 2002
(3) AWC 2088 and Swatantra Bala
Sharma vs. State of U.P., 1994 (4) AWC
3142.

21. Per contra, learned counsel for
respondents 2 to 6 has submitted that :-

(a)
The
report
of
3
Members' Committee was not
approved in 53rd Meeting of
Executive
Council
dated
20.12.2018 rather Chairman was
authorized to get legal vetting as he
referred Agenda No. 19/53 of said
meeting and its resolution, which is
quoted below :-
"The Executive Council in
its meeting held on 08.12.2011,
while considering the following
item under " Any other item with
the permission of the Chair", the
following point were raised and
resolved as under:-
The following issue were
emerged and decided:-
(i) Some of the members
raised the issue regarding the action
on the representation of Dr. Manik
Chandra, Department of Ancient
History and other Guest Faculty/
Part-time Lecturers in pursuance of
Executive Council Resolution No.
03/15
dated
20.06.2010
and
Resolution
No.
01/16
dated
07.08.2010.
Resolved that the Vice
Chancellor
be
authorized
to
constitute a committee to examine
the cases.
In pursuance of the above
decision of the Execution Council,
you are required to put up note
immediately to the Registrar, with
regard to the Guest Faculty/ Partime Lecturers, may kindly submit
the same to the Hon'ble Vice
Chancellor
for
constituting
a
Committee the same."
(b) Though it has not been
denied that a subsequent Office
Order was issued on 05.04.2019,
whereby approval was accorded to
continuity
of
service
of
the
petitioner as Part Time Lecturer
and it was approved in 55th
Meeting of Executive Council.
(c) Learned counsel has
further referred paragraphs 30, 42
and 49 of counter affidavit which
are quoted below :-
3 All. Rajnish Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India & Ors.
567
"30. That the contents of
paragraph 30 of the writ petition
are incorrect. It is submitted that
the reliance placed on Statue
15(7)(IV)
is
clearly
misplace.
Statute 15 is with regard to
Selection
Committee
and
its
composition.
Furthermore
for
application of 15(7)(IV), there has
to be recommendation of a regular
selection committee. In the present
case, the petitioner has never faced
any regular selection committee,
apart from the selection committee
for guest faculty, and his name has
never been recommended by any
regular selection committee.
With regards to Section 31
(3) (c) of the State University Act,
the Court in Writ A No. 3177 of
2020 categorically held that the
petitioner had lost any claim of
higher status available under the
State Act once the petitioner
obtained an engagement of Guest
Faculty in 2007.
Similarly section 46 (2) (b)
of the 2005 Act were also not
applicable because the essential
requirements of the section were
not met in the case of the petitioner.
His
name
has
never
been
recommended
by
a
regular
selection committee and neither
was the petitioner ever appointed as
a
part
time
lecturer
in
the
University after recommendation
from any selection Committee.
It is pertinent to mention
that the Committee was not a
selection committee. The three
member
committee
never
functioned as a selection committee
as it did not fulfil the requirement
of Statue 15.
42. That the contents of
paragraph 42 of the writ petition
are incorrect. It is submitted that
there was no selection of the
petitioner at any point of time. The
petitioner was initially a JRF
scholar till 1997 and later on was
appointed a Guest Faculty in 2007.
Apart from these two instances, the
petitioner was never appointed by
the University in any capacity.
Furthermore
the
order
dated
05.04.2019
clearly
stated
that
continuity/regularization would be
subject to the petitioner facing a
regular selection committee of the
department. The petitioner is yet to
face such a selection committee.
There is no irregularity in the
selection procedure but the fact that
the selection procedure for the
petitioner was never undertaken.
The
respondents
have
never
acquiesced to the right of the
petitioner.
49. That the contents of
paragraph 50 of the writ petition
are incorrect. It is submitted that
the claim of the petitioner for
regularization can't be considered
in light of the judgment rendered in
Writ A no. 64494 of 2008 whereby
the Court held that the Vice
Chancellor or for that matter the
Executive Council had no authority
of law to constitute a committee for
regularization that was claimed by
the petitioner.
Furthermore any claim on
the basis of the State Act has been
negated by the Court in Writ A No.
3177 of 2020. The only question
that
the
Court
referred
for
adjudication was the applicability
of Statue 15.7 (IV) which is clearly
568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not applicable in case of the
petitioner.
For
application
of
15.7(IV),
there
has
to
be
recommendation
of
a
regular
selection committee. In the present
case, the petitioner has never faced
any regular selection committee,
apart from the selection committee
for guest faculty in 2007, and his
name has never been recommended
by any regular selection committee
as constituted under Statue 15(2).
The Court vide its order
made it clear that regularization
could only be seen on the basis of
Statue 15(7) (IV) and on that basis
directed the University to complete
the exercise within two months.
Thus all that was left was for the
University to see the applicability
of Statue 15(7) (IV) which was
done by formation of Committee
which examined the issue denovo
and came to a conclusion that
Statue 15(7) (IV) did not have any
application in the case of the
petitioner."
(d) Learned counsel has
further submitted that in the Office
Order dated 05.04.2019, there was
a
reference
of
Selection
Committee, however, it was not in
terms of 'Act of 2005' and Statute.
In
absence
of
Ordinance,
provisions of Act of 2005 and
Statute were required to follow.
Section 45 of Act of 2005 also
provides no provision in consistent
of Act of 2005 and Statute would
be applicable and as such, Selection
Committee as referred in Minutes
of Meeting dated 22.09.2007 was
not in terms of para 15.2 of Statute
so far as Selection Committee for
appointment
of
Lecturer
was
concerned.

22. Heard learned counsel for
parties and perused the record.

23. From above referred rival
submissions and facts and circumstances of
case, only issue left for consideration is that
despite petitioner is guilty of not coming
before this Court with clean hands still
whether petitioner could be regularized in
terms of para 15(7)(iv) of the Statute. For
reference, para 15(2) (Selection Committee
for Lecturer) and 15(7)(iv) of Statute are
quoted below :-

"15. Selection Committees
:-
(1)......
(2)
The
Selection
Committee for appointment to the
posts specified in column 1 of the
Table below shall consist of the
Vice-Chancellor, a nominee of the
Visitor and the persons specified in
the corresponding entry in column
2 of the said Table:
Lecturer :-
(i)
The
Dean
of
the
Faculty/Head of the Department.
(ii) Three experts in the
concerned
subject/field,
to
be
appointed
by
the
Executive
Council,
out
of
the
panel
recommended by the Academic
Council.
(3)......
(4)......
(5)......
(6)......
(7)
Appointments
to
temporary posts shall be made in
the manner indicated below :-
3 All. Rajnish Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India & Ors.
569
(i)......
(ii)......
(iii)......
(iv) Where a teacher has
been appointed to a Department on
the recommendation of a regular
Selection
Committee
on
a
temporary post, and such post
subsequently becomes permanently
vacant or another permanent post
of the same rank and grade
becomes available in the same
Department, the Executive Council
may appoint such teacher on
permanent
basis
in
such
Department
without
further
reference to a regular Selection
Committee."

24. Aforesaid clause provides that
petitioner may only be considered for
appointment
on
permanent
basis,
if
petitioner (teacher) was appointed on
recommendation of a regular Selection
Committee and only then he may not be
referred to a regular Selection Committee
for appointment of a teacher on permanent
basis.

25. Now Court has to scrutinize
whether Selection Committee constituted
for
consideration
of
appointment
of
petitioner dated 22.09.2007 was duly
constituted or not.

26. In this regard, Clause 15 (2) of
Statute of University would be relevant
wherein
constitution
of
a
Selection
Committee for post of Lecturer was also
mentioned that it ought to have been
comprised with Dean of the Faculty, Head
of Department and three experts in
concerned subject/field to be appointed by
the Executive Council, out of the panel
recommended by the Academic Council,
however, above referred constitution of
Selection Committee was not in terms of
above referred details of Constitution of
Selection Committee.

27. In aforesaid documents, Court
also takes note of effect of Section 45 of
the Act, 2005 and for that Court takes note
of Section 29 of the Act of 2005 which is
powered to make Ordinance. At this stage,
it would be relevant to refer that the
Ordinance of University made under
Section 29(2) of Act of 2005 were
published in Gazette on 09.02.2008.

28.