# Sunita Diwedi v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 458 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2004-01-28 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53894 of 2003 - **Bench:** M. Katju, Mrs. Poonam Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunita-diwedi-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40310 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Sri D.K. Tripathi S.C. U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act 1990- Section 15 (3)- selected candidate from commission- despite of placement order of Director- management ignoring the selected candidate such state of affair- held most unfortunate-general mandamus issuedif the management fails to carriont the direction within 3 weeks- drastic action be taken against such management. In several cases, which are coming up before this court, we have found that the candidate selected by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission is not given appointment despite the placement order of the Director, Higher Education because for some reason the committee of management does not wish to appoint him. In our opinion, this is wholly illegal and the committee of management has to give appointment to the person selected by the Higher Education Public Service Commission, otherwise the very purpose of the selection is defeated. If the committee of management does not give appointment to the selected candidate, action must be taken against the management under Section 15 (3) of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1990 as well as Section 57/58 of the U.P. State Universities Act 1973. Para 6 ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 458 amounts, the respondents must pay to the petitioners Rs. 2 lacs as exemplary costs which shall be distributed to each of the petitioners in accordance with the area of their land, which was taken over by the respondents. Petition Allowed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD. 28.1.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53894 of 2003 Sunita Diwedi ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R.N. Tripathi Counsel for the Respondents: Sri D.K. Tripathi S.C. U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act 1990- Section 15 (3)- selected candidate from commission- despite of placement order of Director- management ignoring the selected candidate such state of affair- held most unfortunate-general mandamus issuedif the management fails to carriont the direction within 3 weeks- drastic action be taken against such management. In several cases, which are coming up before this court, we have found that the candidate selected by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission is not given appointment despite the placement order of the Director, Higher Education because for some reason the committee of management does not wish to appoint him. In our opinion, this is wholly illegal and the committee of management has to give appointment to the person selected by the Higher Education Public Service Commission, otherwise the very purpose of the selection is defeated. If the committee of management does not give appointment to the selected candidate, action must be taken against the management under Section 15 (3) of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1990 as well as Section 57/58 of the U.P. State Universities Act 1973. Para 6 (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission as well as learned standing counsel. 2. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that the petitioner has been selected by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission as Lecturer in Hindi for Agra College, Agra. The recommendation of the Higher Education Service Commission dated 17.6.2003 is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. 3. In pursuance of letter dated 17.6.2003, the petitioner submitted his joining before the Principal, Agra College, Agra who is also Secretary of the Managing Committee of the College on 24.7.2003, but she has not yet been allowed to join there. True copies of the joining reports are Annexure nos. 3 and 4. 4. We are distressed to note that although the recommendation, which is in favour of petitioner, was sent by the Commission to the Director, Higher Education, U.P in June 2003 the petitioner has not yet been allowed to join as Lecturer in Hindi in Agra College, Agra. College, Agra. http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 2 All] Sunita Diwedi V. State of U.P. and others 459 5. Under Section 15 (2) of the U.P. Higher Service Commission Act 1990, it is provided that if the management fails to appoint the selected candidate, who has been issued placement order by the Director, then the Director may order the management to appoint him/her as a teacher forthwith and pay him salary and the Principal has to appoint her as teacher. The salary under Section 15 (3) of the Act is liable to be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the Collector. Moreover, under Section 57 of the U.P. State Universities Act, which deals with affiliated colleges, if the management fails to appoint a teacher, the State Government can call upon the management to show cause why an order by not passed under section 58 of the Act. Under Section 58 the State Government after considering the explanation of the management, can appoint an authorized controller to take over the management. 6. In several cases, which are coming up before this court, we have found that the candidate selected by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission is not given appointment despite the placement order of the Director, Higher Education because for some reason the committee of management does not wish to appoint him. In our opinion, this is wholly illegal and the committee of management has to give appointment to the person selected by the Higher Education Public Service Commission, otherwise the very purpose of the selection is defeated. If the committee of management does not give appointment to the selected candidate, action must be taken against the management under Section 15 (3) of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1990 as well as Section 57/58 of the U.P. State Universities Act 1973. The present state of affairs cannot be interacted any longer. It is defeating the very purpose of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act since selected candidates are not being given appointment despite selection in a large number of cases. Apart from the above general direction which we have issued, we also issue an interim mandamus to the committee of management, Agra College, Agra to give appointment to the petitioner as Hindi Lecturer forthwith or to show cause within three weeks. If the cause show is not satisfactory, we may have to direct that action should be taken against the committee of management as mentioned above. List after three weeks. 7. Let the Registrar General of this Court as well as learned standing counsel send copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Director, Higher Education and other concerned authorities. 8. The petitioner shall serve copy of this order on the committee of management as well as Principal, Agra College, Agra, who may file counter affidavit within ten days. 9. A copy of this order shall be given free of charge to the learned standing counsel today. A copy of this order shall also be given to learned counsel for the petitioner today on payment of usual charges. --------- http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 460 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.4.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUSHIL HARKAULI, J. THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2357 of 1997 Bachchey Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & others ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Petitioner: Filed by Jail Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Sri Vijay Shanker Misra Constitution of India- Article 161Exercise of power by Governor under U.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act- Sec. 2-Jail Manual- Para 198- premature release of prisoners by Governor- Government order-against ambit of constitution relating to separation of power- Arbitrary and malafide- Hence struck down- letter petition by convict from jail for release on ground that he had served out actual jail term of more than 14 years-criteria laid down for disposal of applications for premature release time bound-Directions issued by State Government and I.G.-Prisoners to submit report on all prisoners imprisoned in various jails of U.P., who have undergone over 14 years actual imprisonment or 14 years together with rescissions in cases of conviction by Trial Court prior to 18.12.1978. This report should contain all the information that was already furnished in the charts SCA I to the first supplementary affidavit dated 1.3.04 and SCA III to the second supplementary affidavit dated 5.4.04, i.e. the name, parentage and permanent address of prisoner, S.T. No., provision under which convicted, date of sentence by Sessions Court, designation of Court, period of sentence, status of appeal, status of Form A, status of nominal role, final order of State Government on application for premature release (if any). In addition the report should also mention age of prisoner, present condition of health if suffering from serious illness. Briefly the main reason for rejection of application for premature release could also be mentioned, in cases where it has been finally rejected. What was the date when the prisoner had undergone 14 years actual imprisonment, and the date when the applications in Form A, and Nominal Roles were forwarded. If the conviction by the Sessions Judge is prior to 18.12.78, the date when the prisoner had undergone 14 years together with remissions and became eligible for consideration for premature release, and the actual date for forwarding the applications in Form A and Nominal Roles. Whether any action for premature release taken under any other G.O. under Article 161 or otherwise, fate of such application. Para 28 Case law discussed: 2002(1) JIC 342 (All) AIR 1980 SC 2147 (2000) 8 SCC 437 (2000) Crl. L.J. 1471 (Delivered by Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.) 1. In these proceedings, which commenced on a letter petition by a convict from jail, we have been given valuable and impartial assistance by the learned Government Advocate Sri Vijay Shanker Misra considering that the petitioner is not represented and the issue is of public importance. The Issue 2. In Mirza Moihammad Husayn V. State of U.P., (2002 (1) JIC 342 (All), a Division Bench of this Court comprising Hon'ble G.P. Mathur and Hon'ble S.K.