Devi Prasad Gupta vs State of U.P. and Others

The present special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12th January, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the challenge to the selection and appointment of Sri Sanjay Kumar, arrayed as Respondent No. 6 here in, has been negatives.

We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare on behalf of the Appellant, learned Standing Counsel, who represents the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and Sri A.K. Yadav appearing for the Respondent No. 2 and have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 12th January, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge giving rise to the present appeal, the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the documents filed along with it.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

A post of Lecturer in Civics in Jeevan Ram Inter College, Mau Nath Bhanjan, Mau, a recognized and aided Inter College, hereinafter referred to as "the College" fell vacant. According to Sri Sanjay Kumar, Respondent No. 6 and the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Respondent No. 2, the vacancy was liable to filled by a Scheduled Caste candidate and was taken into consideration while making Advertisement No. 2/2004 published in various newspapers on 8th December, 2004 whereas the case of the present Appellant is that the said vacancy was not notified by the Respondent No. 2 and, therefore, no selection and consequently no appointment on the post of Lecturer in Civics in the College could have been made. According to the Appellant selection and appointment of Sri Sanjay Kumar is, therefore, wholly illegal. The learned Single Judge after getting the records produced by the Respondent No. 2 and perusing the same came to the conclusion that the vacancy of Lecturer in Civics in the College was taken into consideration and was duly notified vide Advertisement No. 2 of 2004. He came to the conclusion that the selection of Sri Sanjay Kumar, therefore, cannot be faulted consequently the writ petition preferred by the Appellant was dismissed. We may mention here that Sri Sanjay Kumar has also preferred a writ petition before this Court seeking a direction for issuance of appointment letter in respect of the post of Lecturer in Civics in the College.

Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that from the record it is not clear as to what proceedings was undertaken by the Board for including the post of Lecturer in Civics in the College in the vacancies of Advertisement No. 2/2004.

Sri Yadav, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, was directed to file an affidavit and he has stated that the Board maintains a Requisition Register and all such requisitions received by it till a particular date are placed before the Secretary, who approves the number of posts and name of the institutions for being notified. According to Sri Yadav, names of the institutions are not to be notified in the cases where the posts of Lecturer or Assistant Teacher are required to be filled and only where the posts of Principle are to be filled the name of the institution is notified in the newspapers. Sri Yadav had also produced the Requisition Register before the Court, on a perusal of which the Court finds that at page 170 all the requisitions received from district Mau have been entered giving name of the institution, letter number and date by which the requisition has been sent, mentioning the subject in which the vacancy has occurred and whether it is reserved or unreserved. In the affidavit filed by the Board it has been stated that the Secretary had taken into consideration all the requisitions received by the Board and had accordingly calculated the vacancies and notified.

That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the Board has acted in conformity with the Rules and the post of Lecturer in Civics in the College was duly advertised through Advertisement No. 2/2004. In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appeal fails and is dismissed.