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

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 486
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-17
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 15433 of 2024
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yudhveer-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53004
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Parijat Mishra, Alka Upadhyay, Avneesh
Tripathi, C.S.C., Gagan Mehta, Manish
Tiwari,
Prabhakar
Awasthi,
Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava

A. Service/Education Law - Appointment
- When the selected candidate is placed in
a College, he has no right to change his
placement. (Para 23)

Dr. Sachidanand Sharma was appointed as
permanent Principal on the basis of the
recommendation made by the Commission in
the institution. He resigned from the said post
and Dr. Anjali Mittal, who was senior most
teacher in the institution was appointed as
Officiating Principal. Upon her retirement,
petitioner was given charge of Officiating
Principal on 14.6.2024. After resignation of
2 All. Yudhveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
487
Dr. Sachidanand Sharma, the Director of
Education (Higher) passed an order dated
15.01.2024,
directing
the
Secretary/
Manager
of
the
Committee
of
Management to appoint respondent no. 6,
who was in wait list of the selected
candidate, at sl. no. 59 as Principal in the
institution in question. (Para 19)

It is not disputed that prior to issuance of the
letter dated 15.01.2024 by the Director of
Higher
Education,
U.P.
Prayagraj,
the
respondent no. 6 had been appointed as
Principal of Bajrang P.G. College, Dadar Ashram,
Ballia and a letter dated 03.08.2022 was issued
by the Director of Higher Education to the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
said
institution to issue letter of appointment to the
respondent no. 6. (Para 19)

It is also not disputed that on behalf of the
Director of Higher Education and Joint Director
of Education an order dated 17.08.2023 has
communicated to the Special Secretary. Higher
Education, Anubhag-2, Lucknow that Manoj
Kumar Rawat, respondent no. 6, who was in
wait
list
of
the
selected
candidate
of
Advertisement No. 49 of 2019 had been allotted
Bajrang P.G. College, Dadar Ashram, Ballia and
accordingly placement had been completed
on 03.08.2022. It is further intimated by the
Director that there is no provision in the Act
or GO for change of allotment of the
College. Further the Director of Higher
Education by letter dated 13.12.2023 has
intimated that there is no provision in the
Act of 1980 for change of place of
allotment/college. Thus, the Director of
Higher Education has already rejected the
prayer of respondent no. 6 for change of
allotment of College. Moreover, the respondent
no. 6 in his counter affidavit has not stated
anything about the said orders, which infact
rejects the claim/request of the respondent no.
6 for change of the College. (Para 20)

B. Locus Standii - The petitioner being
appointed as Officiating Principal, has
locus to challenge, the appointment of
respondent no. 6. (Para 25)

In the present case, the Director of Education
(Higher)
having
passed
an
order
for
appointment of respondent no. 6 in Bajrang P.G.
College, Dadar Ashram, Ballia, the appointment
process come to an end and the Director is
ceased
with
the
power
to
make
recommendation
or
appointment
of
such
candidate to any other College, as has been
held in case of Km. Ragni Srivastava (infra).
Moreover as the Director himself has rejected
the claim of respondent no. 6 for his transfer
from Bajrang P.G. College, Dadar Ashram, Ballia
to Meerut College, Meerut by orders dated
17.8.2023 & 13.12.2023, the subsequent order
dated 15.1.2024, directing the management to
appoint respondent no. 6 as Principal is wholly
without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained and
hereby quashed. (Para 26)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
adverting to all such relevant aspects and
considerations. Consequently, the order of
the High Court in so far as it directed
payment of back wages are liable to be and
is hereby set aside."

9. The judgement relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in Raj
Narain v. Union of India and others4 was
rendered in the factual context where the
departmental enquiry was initiated against
the concerned employee who was also
imprisoned on account of pendency of a
criminal case. The petitioner in that case
was
suspended
in
contemplation
of
disciplinary
proceedings.
Later
departmental enquiry proceedings were
dropped. In that factual context the
backwages for the period of suspension
were claimed and were granted. Raj
Narain (supra) is distinguishable on facts
and not applicable to this case.

10. Similarly, the judgement rendered
by the learned Single Judge in Anil Kumar
Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 others5
squarely based on the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Raj Narain (supra) and
hence is of no assistance to the petitioner.

11. In the wake of the facts found in
the preceding part of the judgement and
position of law discussed above relaxation
of the principle of "no work no pay" cannot
be countenanced in this case. In fact
granting backwages in the teeth of the
principle of "no work no pay" will lead to
unjust enrichment of the petitioner and
unfair loss to the State exchequer. The
petitioner does not have any lawful
entitlement to the period of any backwages
during the period of his imprisonment.

12. Accordingly, the prayer for grant
of backwages is rejected.

13. There is no infirmity in the
impugned order dated 23.04.2020 to that
extent.

14. However, the petitioner shall be
entitled to continuity in service for the
aforesaid period for purposes of pension.

15. With the aforesaid directions, the
writ petition is finally disposed of.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 486
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ-A No. 15433 of 2024

Yudhveer Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ankit Shukla, Vinayak Mithal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Parijat Mishra, Alka Upadhyay, Avneesh
Tripathi, C.S.C., Gagan Mehta, Manish
Tiwari,
Prabhakar
Awasthi,
Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava

A. Service/Education Law - Appointment
- When the selected candidate is placed in
a College, he has no right to change his
placement. (Para 23)

Dr. Sachidanand Sharma was appointed as
permanent Principal on the basis of the
recommendation made by the Commission in
the institution. He resigned from the said post
and Dr. Anjali Mittal, who was senior most
teacher in the institution was appointed as
Officiating Principal. Upon her retirement,
petitioner was given charge of Officiating
Principal on 14.6.2024. After resignation of
2 All. Yudhveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
487
Dr. Sachidanand Sharma, the Director of
Education (Higher) passed an order dated
15.01.2024,
directing
the
Secretary/
Manager
of
the
Committee
of
Management to appoint respondent no. 6,
who was in wait list of the selected
candidate, at sl. no. 59 as Principal in the
institution in question. (Para 19)

It is not disputed that prior to issuance of the
letter dated 15.01.2024 by the Director of
Higher
Education,
U.P.
Prayagraj,
the
respondent no. 6 had been appointed as
Principal of Bajrang P.G. College, Dadar Ashram,
Ballia and a letter dated 03.08.2022 was issued
by the Director of Higher Education to the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
said
institution to issue letter of appointment to the
respondent no. 6. (Para 19)

It is also not disputed that on behalf of the
Director of Higher Education and Joint Director
of Education an order dated 17.08.2023 has
communicated to the Special Secretary. Higher
Education, Anubhag-2, Lucknow that Manoj
Kumar Rawat, respondent no. 6, who was in
wait
list
of
the
selected
candidate
of
Advertisement No. 49 of 2019 had been allotted
Bajrang P.G. College, Dadar Ashram, Ballia and
accordingly placement had been completed
on 03.08.2022. It is further intimated by the
Director that there is no provision in the Act
or GO for change of allotment of the
College. Further the Director of Higher
Education by letter dated 13.12.2023 has
intimated that there is no provision in the
Act of 1980 for change of place of
allotment/college. Thus, the Director of
Higher Education has already rejected the
prayer of respondent no. 6 for change of
allotment of College. Moreover, the respondent
no. 6 in his counter affidavit has not stated
anything about the said orders, which infact
rejects the claim/request of the respondent no.
6 for change of the College. (Para 20)

B. Locus Standii - The petitioner being
appointed as Officiating Principal, has
locus to challenge, the appointment of
respondent no. 6. (Para 25)

In the present case, the Director of Education
(Higher)
having
passed
an
order
for
appointment of respondent no. 6 in Bajrang P.G.
College, Dadar Ashram, Ballia, the appointment
process come to an end and the Director is
ceased
with
the
power
to
make
recommendation
or
appointment
of
such
candidate to any other College, as has been
held in case of Km. Ragni Srivastava (infra).
Moreover as the Director himself has rejected
the claim of respondent no. 6 for his transfer
from Bajrang P.G. College, Dadar Ashram, Ballia
to Meerut College, Meerut by orders dated
17.8.2023 & 13.12.2023, the subsequent order
dated 15.1.2024, directing the management to
appoint respondent no. 6 as Principal is wholly
without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained and
hereby quashed. (Para 26)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Jagdish Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2012 (3)
ADJ 1 (Para 23)

2. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma Vs Yogesh Kumar
Gupta & ors., AIR 1998 SC 1021 (Para 25)

3. Krishna Kant Jaiswal Vs Banaras Hindu
University & ors., AIR 1984 Alld. 350 (Para
14)

4. Km. Ragni Srivastava Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
1997 (1) ESC 649 (Para 14)

Precedent distinguished:

M.C. Yadav Vs. Director of Education (Higher
Education), Allahabad & ors., 2001(2) UPLBEC
1435 (Para 13)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner with the following
reliefs:

"(i) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned letter/order dated
15.1.2024 (Annexure-1) passed by the
respondent No.2):
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ii) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding
the
respondents
not
to
interfere in the working of the petitioner as
Officiating Principal of the Meerut College
Meerut till the regular appointment is made
by the Commission;"

(iii) to issue any other suitable
writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.

(iv)to award costs of this petition
to the petitioner.

(v) to issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction quashing the impugned
joining letter dated 3.10.2024 passed by the
Secretary, Meerut College, Meerut."

2. The facts as stated in the writ
petition are that Uttar Pradesh Higher
Education
Services
Commission
(hereinafter referred to as 'Commission')
issued Advertisement No. 49 of 2019,
inviting applications for appointment of
219 posts of Principal in aided PostGraduate Colleges in State of Uttar
Pradesh, including the post of Principal in
Meerut College, Meerut. The Commission
completed selection process and issued list
of 219 selected candidates along with
waiting list of 73 candidates. The said list
was published on 5.10.2021.

3. One Dr. Sachidanand Sharma was
selected
by
the
Commission
for
appointment at Meerut College, Meerut and
on the basis of the recommendation of the
Commission, Dr. Sachidanand Sharma was
given appointment as Principal of the
institution by appointment letter dated
23.10.2021.

4. Dr. Sachidanand Sharma joined the
institution and thereafter he submitted his
resignation on 28.5.2023. His resignation
was accepted by the Committee of
Management
by
its
resolution
dated
8.6.2023 and accordingly by letter dated
9.6.2023, Dr. Sachidanand Sharma was
relieved from the post of Principal of the
institution.

5. After relieving Dr. Sachidanand
Sharma, one Dr. Anjali Mittal, who was the
senior most teacher in the institution, was
appointed as Officiating Principal of the
institution. Dr. Anjali Mittal on attaining
the age of superannuation has also retired
on 30.6.2024 and the post of Principal
again fall vacant in the institution.

6.
After
resignation
of
Dr.
Sachidanand Sharma, Director of Higher
Education, U.P. Prayagraj issued an order
dated 15.1.2024, appointed Dr. Manoj
Kumar Rawat, respondent no. 6, who was
placed at sl. No. 59 in the waiting list,
published on 5.10.2021, as Principal of the
institution.

7. Dr. Anjali Mittal, who was working
as Officiating Principal of the institution
moved representation dated 29.1.2024
before the respondent no. 3, namely,
Committee
of
Management
of
the
institution, objecting the order of Director
and praying with the Committee of
Management for not issuing any letter of
appointment in favour of the respondent no.
6.

8. It is further stated in the writ
petition that the petitioner being senior
most teacher in the institution in question,
has been appointed as Officiating Principal
of the institution by an order dated
14.6.2024.

9. It is further stated in the writ
petition that the respondent no. 6 was
2 All. Yudhveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
489
earlier appointed as Principal of Bajrang
P.G. College, Dadar Ashram, Ballia by
order dated 3.8.2022. The said order of
appointment of respondent no. 6 has been
annexed as annexure-9 to the writ petition.

10. It is argued by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that once a candidate in
the waiting list has been offered an
appointment, his right is exhausted and he
cannot be given further appointment. The
petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has also
annexed the letter dated 17.8.2023 issued
by the Director of Higher Education to the
Special
Secretary.
Higher
Education,
Anubhag-2, U.P. Lucknow, by which the
request of Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat,
respondent no. 6 for change of his
appointment from Bajrang P.G. College,
Dadar Ashram, Ballia to Meerut College,
Meerut was rejected. The petitioner has
also brings on record the order dated
13.12.2023 also, which contains the list of
candidates, by which the request of
respondent
no.
6
for
change
of
placement/appointment from Bajrang P.G.
College, Dadar Ashram, Ballia has been
rejected on the ground that there is no
provision
in
Uttar
Pradesh
Higher
Education Services Commission Act, 1980
for change of place of appointment.

11. During pendency of the present
writ
petition,
the
Committee
of
Management has issued an order of
appointment of respondent no. 6 on
3.10.2024 with rider that said order of
appointment is subject to outcome of
present writ petition.

12. A counter affidavit has been filed
by the respondent no. 6. In the counter
affidavit, it is not denied that on the basis
of the recommendation made by the
Commission, the petitioner was allotted the
institution, namely, Bajrang P.G. College,
Dadar Ashram, Ballia. It is stated in the
counter affidavit that in pursuance of the
recommendation and directions issued
under
the
Act
of
1980,
letter
of
appointment was not issued by the
Appointing Authority of the aforesaid
College. It is further stated that one Dr.
Jitendra Kumar has also challenged the
recommendation of respondent no. 6 dated
15.1.2024, by filing Writ-A No. 1350 of
2024, but subsequently, the said writ
petition was dismissed as withdrawn by
order dated 16.5.2024, as Dr. Jitendra
Kumar was appointed as Principal in
Agrasen P.G. College, Sikandrabad. It is
further stated that Dr. Anjali Mittal has also
filed Writ-A No. 3989 of 2024, challenging
the recommendation dated 15.1.2024, the
said writ petition is still pending.

13. The case of the respondent no. 6 is
that the list of selected candidate along with
wait list is valid till next select list is
published
by
the
Commission.
The
respondent no. 6 has further relied upon
section 13(4) of the Act of 1980 and has
stated that in view of Section 13(4) of the
Act of 1980, wherein vacancy occurs, due
to death, resignation or otherwise during
the period of validity of the list referred to
in sub-section (2) and such vacancy has not
been notified to the Commission under
Sub-Section (3) of section 12, the Director
may intimate to the management the name
of
a
candidate
from
such
list
for
appointment in such vacancy. The vacancy
in Meerut College, Meerut has occurred
due to resignation of Dr. Sachidanand
Sharma, as such, the appointment of the
petitioner in Meerut College, Meerut is in
accordance with sub- section (4) of section
13 of the Act of 1980. The respondent no. 6
has further relied upon a judgment reported
in 2001(2) UPLBEC 1435; M.C. Yadav Vs.
490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Director of Education (Higher Education),
Allahabad and others.

14. On behalf of respondent no.
4/Secretary,
U.P.
Higher
Education
Services Commission, Prayagraj, written
submission has been filed. The respondent
no. 4 has relied upon section 13(4) of Act
of 1980 and has stated that the petitioner
being the Officiating Principal, has no right
to challenge the selection of regular
candidate. It is further stated that the
recommendation of respondent no. 6 is in
accordance
with
law
and
for
the
proposition that the writ petition on behest
of Officiating Principal challenge the
appointment of regularly selected candidate
is not maintainable. He has relied upon a
judgment reported in AIR 1984 Alld. 350;
Krishna Kant Jaiswal Vs. Banaras Hindu
University & others and has further relied
upon in certain paragraphs of a case,
reported in 1997(1) ESC 649; Km. Ragni
Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & others.

15. Neither the respondent no. 6 nor
the respondent no. 4. have not denied the
fact that the Director of Higher Education
by order dated 13.12.2023 and Joint
Director of Education by order dated
17.8.2023 has clearly stated that change of
placement of selected candidate is not
permissible under the provision contained
in Act of 1980 and the request of
respondent no. 6 was rejected.

16. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vinayak
Mithal and Shri Ankit Shukla, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Shri M.C.
Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by the learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent
Nos. 1 & 2, Shri Parijat Mishra, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent
No. 3 as well as Shri Gagan Mehta, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent
No.4, Shri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 5 and
Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent No.6.

17. With the consent of parties, the
present writ petition is being decided at the
admission stage.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has argued that Dr. Sachidanand Sharma was
appointed as permanent Principal on the basis
of the recommendation made by the
Commission
in
the
institution.
Dr.
Sachidanand Sharma resigned from the said
post, as such, the post of Principal of the
institution fallen vacant and accordingly, Dr.
Anjali Mittal, who was senior most teacher in
the institution was appointed as Officiating
Principal of the institution. She has retired on
attaining the age of superannuation and
accordingly, the petitioner was given charge
of Officiating Principal on 14.6.2024. After
resignation of Dr. Sachidanand Sharma, the
Director of Education (Higher) passed an
order
dated
15.1.2024,
directing
the
Secretary/Manager of the Committee of
Management to appoint respondent no. 6,
who was in wait list of the selected candidate,
at sl. no. 59 as Principal in the institution in
question.

19. It is not disputed that prior to
issuance of the letter dated 15.1.2024 by
the Director of Higher Education, U.P.
Prayagraj. the respondent no. 6 had been
appointed as Principal of Bajrang P.G.
College, Dadar Ashram, Ballia and a letter
dated 3.8.2022 was issued by the Director
of Higher Education to the Committee of
Management of the said institution to issue
letter of appointment to the respondent no.
6.
2 All. Yudhveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
491

20. It is also not disputed that on
behalf of the Director of Higher Education
and Joint Director of Education an order
dated 17.8.2023 has communicated to the
Special
Secretary.
Higher
Education,
Anubhag-2, Lucknow that Manoj Kumar
Rawat, respondent no. 6, who was in wait
list
of
the
selected
candidate
of
Advertisement No. 49 of 2019 had been
allotted Bajrang P.G. College, Dadar
Ashram, Ballia and accordingly placement
had been completed on 3.8.2022. It is
further intimated by the Director that there
is no provision in the Act or Government
Order for change of allotment of the
College. Further the Director of Higher
Education by letter dated 13.12.2023 has
intimated that there is no provision in the
Act of 1980 for change of place of
allotment/college. Thus, the Director of
Higher Education has already rejected the
prayer of respondent no. 6 for change of
allotment of College. These two orders
have not been denied, either by the counsel
for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 nor by the
respondent no. 6. Moreover, the respondent
no. 6 in his counter affidavit has not stated
anything about the said orders, which infact
rejects the claim/request of the respondent
no. 6 for change of the College. These two
orders have not been challenged before any
authority or Court of Law.

21. Based on the aforesaid two orders,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
argued that once the Director of Higher
Education has rejected the claim of the
respondent no. 6, there is no occasion for
review of the said order and passed the
impugned order, without any reference and
even without recalling or cancelling the
aforesaid orders, as such, the respondent
Director of Higher Education has no
authority to pass the order dated 14.1.2024
and review its earlier order.

22. This Court in case of Km. Ragni
Srivastava (supra) has held that where subsection (4) of Section 13 applies to any
vacancy, nomination is to be made by the
Director of Education from amongst the
candidates whose names have not already
been intimated to the management of any
college and not from amongst those whose
names have already been intimated to the
management of any college having due
regard to the preference indicated by him.
Relevant
paragraph
of
the
aforesaid
judgment is reproduced below:

7. We are further of the view that
where sub-section (4) of Section 13 applies
to any vacancy, nomination is to be made
by the Director of Education from amongst
the candidates whose names have (not
already been intimated to the management
of any college and not from amongst those
whose names have already been intimated
to the management of any college having
due regard to the preference indicated by
them. The reason is that the appointment
process comes to a close after the selection
process contemplated in the Act has been
gone through and appointment letter has
been issued by the concerned college
pursuant to the recommendation of the
Director of Education or where after the
intimation has been sent by the Director
under
Section
13(3)
the
candidate
frustrates the issue of appointment letter by
saying that it is not possible for him to join
the college. Any other view would cause the
whole scheme unworkable throwing the
cause of higher education is dis-arry. If a
candidate who having been selected and
appointed is to be allowed not to join the
post to which he was appointed in
accordance with the provisions of the Act
to permit his to wait for a vacancy in the
college of his choice to arise, that would
amount to total disregard to the interest of
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the college and the students and the cause
of higher education to serve only personal
interest of an individual. Therefore, the
appointment of Sri Ashutosh Dwivedi to the
Allahabad Degree College is not in terms
of Section 13(4) of the Act and is,
consequently, void under Section 12(1) of
the Act. His allegation that by joining the
leave vacancy initially there, he ran the
risk of losing employment does not have the
efficacy of converting his void appointment
into a valid one.

23. This Court in case of Jagdish
Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others,
reported in 2012 (3) ADJ 1, has also
reiterated the said principle that when the
selected candidate is placed in a College,
he has no right to change his placement.
Relevant
paragraph
of
the
aforesaid
judgment is reproduced below:

20. In Chaman Singh v. State of
U.P. (Supra) the Court in the judgment to
which one of us was a member held:

"On the aforesaid facts, we do not
find substance in the contention of learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner,
that
the
Digamber Jain P.G. College is not a
College defined under the Act, and does not
have a sanctioned post of Principal in the
pay scale of Rs. 16,400-22,400/- for which
the petitioner was selected. After the
petitioner was selected, placed and issued
appointment letter by Digamber Jain P.G..
College Bulandshahr, he did not have any
right to claim placement in any other
college, including Gocher Mahavidyalaya,
Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur,
where he was earlier teaching. The
unwillingness of Shri Babu Lal Kushwaha
to
work
as
Principal
of
Gocher
Mahavidyalaya,
Rampur
Maniharan,
District Saharanpur, subsequently and
thereafter placement of Dr. Chandra
Shekhar-respondent No. 4 as its Principal,
does not give petitioner a right to change
his placement. He does not have any right
to claim adjustment or fresh placement
after he was placed as Frincipal, Digamber
Jain P.G. College Bulandshahr, and was
issued appointment letter. Dr. Babu Lal
Kushwaha and Dr. Chandra Shekhar
Singh, both selected and placed in their
respective Colleges, had mutually agreed
on interchange, for which the Director of
Education (Higher Education) U.P., had no
objection, vide para-29 of the counteraffidavit of Dr. Harsh Vardhan, Joint
Director in the Directorate of Higher
Education, U.P."

24. The decision cited by the learned
counsel for the respondent in the case of
M.C. Yadav (supra) is not applicable in the
present case, as the said case relate to the
period of validity of the select list and
interpretation of sub- section (4) of section13 of Act of 1980.

25. So far as locus of petitioner to
challenge the appointment of respondent
no. 6 is concerned, the petitioner being
appointed as Officiating Principal, has
locus to challenge, the appointment of
respondent no. 6, as held by the Apex
Court in case of Kamlesh Kumar Sharma
Vs. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and others,
reported in AIR 1998 SC 1021.

26. In the present case, the Director of
Education (Higher) having passed an order
for appointment of respondent no. 6 in
Bajrang P.G. College, Dadar Ashram,
Ballia, the appointment process come to an
end and the Director is seized with the
power
to
make
recommendation
or
appointment of such candidate to any other
College, as has been held in case of Km.
Ragni Srivastava (supra). Moreover as the
2 All. Amar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
493
Director himself has rejected the claim of
respondent no. 6 for his transfer from
Bajrang P.G. College, Dadar Ashram,
Ballia to Meerut College, Meerut by orders
dated
17.8.2023
&
13.12.2023,
the
subsequent order dated 15.1.2024, directing
the management to appoint respondent no.
6 as Principal is wholly without jurisdiction
and cannot be sustained and hereby
quashed.

27. Since the appointment of the
petitioner by the respondent no. 3, vide
order dated 3.10.2024 was subject to
outcome of present writ petition, the said
appointment order based on illegal order
dated 15.1.2024 is also quashed.

28. The writ petition is allowed. No
order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 493
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-A No. 17707 of 2023

Amar Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ramesh Upadhyay (Sr. Advocate), Sri
Rajan Upadhyay, Ms. Atipriya Gautam

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ms.
Monika
Arya
(Addl.
C.S.C.),
Sri
Roopesh Tiwari

A.
Service
Law
-
Disciplinary
Proceedings
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Government Servants (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7 - Uttar
Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 Section
98 - Uttar Pradesh Government Servant
Conduct Rules, 1956 - Rule 3 - Uttar
Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 -
Rule 99.

The principle is that for errors of judgment
on
law
or
facts,
or
even
perverse
conclusions or negligence of a quasijudicial officer or a judicial officer, is not
to be proceeded with in the disciplinary
jurisdiction. If his errors or even perversities
were to be regarded as misconduct, punishable
in the disciplinary jurisdiction, the wheels of
dispensation of justice or disposal of quasijudicial business would come to a standstill. It
would, most certainly, slow down to a snail's
pace, never to achieve the purpose for which it
is there. (Para 15, 18)

In the present case, the charge cannot be
said to be one that is just about an error
of judgment, mistake or mere negligence
in the passing of his quasi- judicial orders
by the petitioner. The charge is about the
petitioner's involvement, apparently for
extraneous reasons or on account of
improper motive. It is true that the way the
charge is worded at the tail-end and in its
formal close, it does appear to be nothing more
that an allegation of negligence in the discharge
of his quasi-judicial functions by the petitioner.
But, the charge is way beyond it, with ample
St.ment of imputations in the body thereof,
that are suggestive of both an improper
motive and extraneous consideration in
the exercise of quasi-judicial powers by
the petitioner in the grant permission to
transfer. The petitioner may not have been
around in the year 1985, when bogus patta
were granted in favour of the land holders,
through whom it is claimed that the land
belonging to the Gaon Sabha was transferred to
vendees not belonging to the SC and then sold
to the UPEIDA, but he was certainly around, as
it appears, when rights of many of the patta
holders were enlarged by conniving revenue
officials. On facts such as these, he passed
order granting transfer of land held by
bhumidhar of the SC to vendees not of that
class, without looking into the report of the
Tehsildar or the SDM or without considering the
fact that some files had the relevant certificates,