Dr. Anil Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Others

The Petitioner has sought the quashing of the order dated 6th August, 2005 passed by the Director of Education (Higher Education), Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the ''Director'') by which, pursuant to the order dated 29th July, 2005 issued by the State Government, the Manager of Chitragupta Mahavidyalaya, Mainpuri has been directed to cancel the appointment of the Petitioner as Principal of the said College consequent to the cancellation of the placement of the Petitioner in the said College by the Director.

The Director, after having received the list of selected candidates from the Higher Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ''Commission'') established u/s 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''), issued the order dated 3rd June, 2002 for placement of the Petitioner as Principal in the Chitragupta Mahavidyalaya, Mainpuri u/s 13(3) of the Act. The management of the College consequently issued appointment order in favour of the Petitioner. This placement order was cancelled by the Director.

We have considered the issues raised in this petition in the judgment delivered by us today in Writ Petition No. 60844 of 2005 (Dr. Satya Pandey v. Director of Education (Higher), U.P. Allahabad and Ors.). We, therefore, propose to state only the essential facts relating to the issuance of the placement order of the Petitioner by the Director as other facts have been stated in detail in the aforesaid judgment.

Advertisement No. 23 of 1996 was issued by the Commission on 13th December, 1996 for filling up 12 posts of Principals for male and female Post Graduate Colleges and Degree Colleges. The Petitioner applied pursuant to the aforesaid Advertisement. The Petitioner was placed at Serial No. 1 in the waiting list of O.B.C. Category candidates sent by the Commission to the Director containing names of Principals of Degree Colleges.

The Director issued the placement order dated 3rd June, 2002 for appointment of the Petitioner on the post of Principal in Chitragupta Mahavidyalaya, Mainpuri. On the basis of the said letter, the Committee of Management of the College issued appointment order dated 3rd June, 2002 to the Petitioner who joined the said College on 5th June, 2002.

In the meantime, as complaints about large scale irregularities in the placement/appointments of Principals by the Director were received, the State Government conducted an enquiry through the District Magistrate, Allahabad. It was found in the enquiry that many persons were appointed as Principals of the Degree Colleges/Post Graduate Colleges against the provisions of the Act as well as against the decision of the Supreme Court in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and others, The State Government, therefore, by the order dated 29th July, 2005 issued directions to the Director to cancel such placement orders. Accordingly, the Director by the order dated 6th August, 2005 cancelled the placement order dated 3rd June, 2002 of the Petitioner and also issued directions to the Committee of Management of Chitragupta Mahavidyalaya, Mainpuri to cancel the appointment of the Petitioner. It is this order that has been impugned in the present petition.

On 26th September, 2005, while entertaining the writ petition, the Court ordered that till further orders of the Court, the impugned order dated 6th August, 2005 shall be kept in abeyance.

It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the State that the post of Principal in Chitragupta Mahavidyalaya, Mainpuri was not advertised in Advertisement No. 23 of 1996 and infact the vacancy had arisen subsequently on account of the death of regular Principal. It is, therefore, stated that the appointment of the Petitioner was void, being against the provision of Section 13 of the Act and also against the decision of the Supreme Court in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma (supra).

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has raised the same submissions as were raised in Dr. Satya Pandey (supra).

We have examined the issues raised by learned Counsel for the Petitioner in detail in the judgment and order of date rendered in Dr. Satya Pandey (supra) and have rejected them.

Thus, for the reasons stated in the judgment delivered by us today in Dr. Satya Pandey (supra), the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.