# Saleem Akhtar Khan v. V.C., Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 872
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-08-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30848 of 2001
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/saleem-akhtar-khan-v-v-c-aligarh-muslim-university-aligarh-and-others-40221
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India Article 226 Service
Law Promotion -The Post of Assistant
(Administration) in various department
of A.M.U. -D.P.C. not recommendedsome person having less qualification
and junior promoted-once participated
can not be allowed to challenge the
validity.

Held Merely because not selected can
not turn around and challenge the
selection process after participation -no
malice established-petition dismissed.

Held- Para 15

Admittedly, the petitioner has not been
found fit by the Selection Committee.
The petitioner had participated in the
written test and had also appeared
before the D.P.C., but his name was not
recommended by the D.P.C. and has
therefore, not been promoted. Merely
because he was not selected, he cannot
turn around and challenge the selection
process
after
participation
in
the
selection. No malice could be established
against the members of the Selection
Committee.

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
872 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
sirdari khata. The decision cited is
therefore distinguishable.

8. From the facts stated above it is
clear that the only basis on which an
inference was drawn by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation that the land in
question was abadi was a statement made
by the learned counsel for the respondents
that there was pucca well, charani and
sehan. I have considered the definition of
'land' in the aforesaid section and it does
not appear that the disputed plot would
cease to be land within the meaning of
Section 3 (5) of the Act.

9. In the result, the writ petition is
allowed and the orders of the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur dated
29.6.1971 and 30.1.1973 are quashed. The
case is sent back to the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Jaunpur who is directed to
consider the question of title and
possession afresh in the light of the
observations made above.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.08.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30848 of 2001

Saleem Akhtar Khan

...Petitioner
Versus
Vice
Chancellor,
Aligarh
Muslim
University Aligarh and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ch. N.A. Khan
Sri S.A. Khan (In Person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dilip Gupta
Sri Arun Pundir
Sri Arun Kumar
S.C.

Constitution of India Article 226 Service
Law Promotion -The Post of Assistant
(Administration) in various department
of A.M.U. -D.P.C. not recommendedsome person having less qualification
and junior promoted-once participated
can not be allowed to challenge the
validity.

Held Merely because not selected can
not turn around and challenge the
selection process after participation -no
malice established-petition dismissed.

Held- Para 15

Admittedly, the petitioner has not been
found fit by the Selection Committee.
The petitioner had participated in the
written test and had also appeared
before the D.P.C., but his name was not
recommended by the D.P.C. and has
therefore, not been promoted. Merely
because he was not selected, he cannot
turn around and challenge the selection
process
after
participation
in
the
selection. No malice could be established
against the members of the Selection
Committee.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard the petitioner in person and
the Standing Counsel.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner challenging the
office memo dated 21.07.2001, by which
the departmental Promotion Committee
(DPC)
has
not
recommended
the
petitioner and has recommended 39 other
persons for appointment as Assistant
(Administration) in various Departments
of the University.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Saleem Akhtar Khan V. V.C., Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and others
873
3. The petitioner was appointed on
13.02.1985 by the General Selection
Committee on the post of U.D.C. The
grievance of the petitioner is that since
1985 he has not been promoted on the
post of Assistant (Administration), even
though he has put in more than 18 years
of service. He alleges that vide order
dated 31.03.1998 eighty applications were
invited for considering the case of
promotion of candidates by the D.P.C. In
pursuance
thereof,
the
petitioner
submitted duly filled up proforma on
04.04.1998.

4. The petitioner submits that the
Assistant Registrar (Administration) had
sent letters on 07.06.2001 for test and
interview for the post of Assistant
(Administration). Assistant Registrar was
interested, but the petitioner was not
coming in the eligibility criteria alleging
malafides against the Assistant Registrar.
He states that on 25.06.2001 another letter
was issued in which some juniors, who
are having less qualification, were called
during
the
period
03.07.2001
to
05.07.2001 and thereafter a select list was
published on 21.07.2001. He states that
his name at serial no. 6 of the select list
was removed from the list and was
substituted by one Liyakat Ali.

5. The other contention of the
petitioner is that the persons at serial no.
9, 27, 30 and 34 in the select list are
having qualification of only P.U.C. for the
post of A.F.A. with eight years on
probation on the post of U.D.C. which is
also given in the proforma annexed as
Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He
further states that the employees at serial
no. 31 to 38 do not have any experience
of five years on the post of U.D.C. He
also states that incorrect facts have been
given in the counter affidavit that twelve
employees alleged to have been working
since 1992. They have only experience of
three and a half years on the post of
U.D.C.

6. Thus the contention of the
petitioner in short is that the persons
mentioned at serial no. 31 to 39 in the
office memo dated 21.07.2001 had not
completed five years on the lower post. In
so far as the person mentioned at serial
no. 9 is concerned he had passed P.U.C.
Examination in 1968. He was eligible to
be considered for promotion to the post of
Assistant (Administration).

7. The counsel for the respondents
states that qualification for the post of
Assistant (Administration) a candidate
should either possess a Bachelor Degree
from a recognized University and he
should have working experience for at
least five years continuously in the next
lower post of the concerned cadre or
relaxation in approved qualifications
should be given only for academic
qualifications.
If
a
candidate
is
Intermediate/P.U.C. and has worked for
atleast eight years, he could also be
considered for promotion. The relaxation
in approved qualifications are annexed as
Annexure-1 to the writ petition and are to
be given upto the extent of next lower
degree/certificate. Thus if a candidate is
intermediate/P.U.C. and has worked for
atleast eight years, he should also be
considered for promotion.

8. It is also submitted that for
promotion to the post of Assistant
(Administration) seniority alone is not the
criteria. He submits that the petitioner had
appeared for the written test and also
appeared before the D.P.C. his name was
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
not recommended by the D.P.C. and as
such he was not promoted to the post of
Assistant (Administration).

9. Rebutting the averment that the
persons mentioned at serial No. 31 to 39
in the office memo dated 21.07.2001 are
not eligible, as they have not completed
five years in the next lower post. The
detailed chart is given as follows:

Sl. No.
Respondent
No.
Date
of
appointment
as U.D.C.
31.
7
8.6.92
32.
8
1.10.92
33.
9
2.2.92
34.
10
1.4.93
35.
11
1.7.95
36.
12
6.11.95
37.
13
1.3.96
38.
14
1.6.96
39.
15
9.11.94

10. From the perusal of the above
chart, it is apparent that these persons
have worked as U.D.C. and have
completed more than five years in the
next lower post.

11. In so far as the candidates
mentioned at serial no. 17 to 30 are
concerned, it is submitted that they had
passed the P.U.C. Examination in the year
1968 and it is wrongly stated by the
petitioner that they are only High School.
Having passed P.U.C. Examination in the
year 1968, they were eligible to the post
of Assistant (Administration) in view of
the relaxation as they had worked as
U.D.C. for more than eight years as
U.D.C.

12. Sri Dilip Gupta, counsel for the
respondents has argued that the persons
mentioned at serial no. 9, 17 and 30 were
appointed on the post of U.D.C. on
04.08.1989 and 11.09.1991 respectively.

13. The counsel for respondents
further submits that the promotion have
been made to the post of Assistant
(Administration) in accordance with law
and all the averments to the contrary are
incorrect and the recommendations of an
expert like the Selection Committee
should not be normally interfered with by
the High Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction. He also submits that no
material has been placed before this Court
by the petitioner by which malafide could
be established. Reliance has been placed
on the decisions of the Apex Court in
2000(2) ALR 606, Dr. Angshula Sarkar
Vs. State of U.P. and others, in AIR 1990
SC 434, Dalpat Abasaheb Solanki Vs.
B.S. Mahajan and in (1997) 3 SCC 124,
Osmania University Vs. Abdul Rayees
Khan and another, wherein the Apex
Court has held that the Court has found it
not necessary to sit in appeal over the
decision of the Selection Committee and
to embark upon deciding the merits of the
candidates. It is needless to emphasise
that it is not the function of the Court to
hear appeals over the decisions of the
Selection Committees and to scrutinize
the relative merits of the candidates.

14. Lastly, it is submitted by the
counsel for the respondents that the
petitioner has an alternative remedy of
filing an appeal to the Executive Council
under Section 36-B of the Aligarh Muslim
University Act, 1920 as amended from
time to time and also a representation to
the visitor of the University under Section
13 (6) of the aforesaid Act.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Smt. Pavitra and others V. State of U.P. and others
875
15. Admittedly, the petitioner has
not been found fit by the Selection
Committee.
The
petitioner
had
participated in the written test and had
also appeared before the D.P.C., but his
name was not recommended by the
D.P.C. and has therefore, not been
promoted. Merely because he was not
selected, he cannot turn around and
challenge the selection process after
participation in the selection. No malice
could be established against the members
of the Selection Committee.

16. The writ petition, therefore, fails
and is dismissed. However, looking at the
long service of the petitioner, it is directed
that his case in the next P.U.C.
Examination
be
considered
sympathetically. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 5.8.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 525 of 1997

Smt. Pavitra and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri R.N. Singh
Sri A.K. Rai
Sri A.P. Sahi
Sri P.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Banerjee
Sri R.M. Pandey
S.C.

U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act- Section 11 (2)- objection
u/s 11 (2) Rejected-without notice-heldmere
their
substitution
in
earlier
proceeding under section 10 (2) of the
Act finalized-objection under section 11
(2) of the Act lying his independent claim
held to be permissible even at the
instance of unrecorded tenure holderPetition allowed and matter remitted
back to the prescribed authority for
passing fresh order.

Held-Para 11

Section 10 (2) of the Act is finalized and
person files objection under Section 11
(2) of the Act laying his independent
claim, which has been held to be
permissible even at the instance of
unrecorded tenure holder. Accordingly
this is clear that so far finding given in
any earlier proceedings are concerned on
any particular issue that is always there
but at the same time if a person files
objection under section 11 (2) of the Act
that is to be examined on the merits with
whatever result on the merits i.e. either
by rejecting the claim of the objector or
by accepting it.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Singh, J.)

1. By means of this writ petition
petitioners have challenged the judgment
of the appellate authority and of the
prescribed authority dated 19.12.96 and
16.9.96 (Annexures 8 and 6 respectively)
by which petitioners application under
section 11 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, hereinafter
referred to as the Act has been rejected.

2. There appears to be no dispute
about the fact that proceedings under
Section 10 (2) of the Act was started
against one Data Ram. Petitioners who
are although married daughters of Data
Ram, referred above but they claim to be
having; their independent rights on the
basis of registered sale deed in their