Dr. Seema Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

S.P. Mehrotra and K.N. Pandey, JJ.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner making the following prayers:

(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2, to grant approval to the appointment of petitioner as Sanskrit Lecturer on honorarium basis and permit the petitioner to continue in the aforesaid institution as Sanskrit Lecturer till the regularly selected candidates is made by the U. P. Higher Education Commission on their post.

(B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to paid honorarium basis to the petitioner admissible to the post regularly month to month and arrear also paid from the date of joining w.e.f. 24.11.2009 in Raja Harpal Singh Post Graduate College, Singramau, Jaunpur.

(C) Issue any other suitable order or direction, which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(D) Award the cost of the petition, in favour of the petitioner.

From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that an Advertisement dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) was issued by the Manager, Raja Harpal Singh Post Graduate College, Singramau, Jaunpur in the daily Newspaper ''Dainik Manyawar'' and the daily Newspaper ''Janvarta'' inviting applications for appointment on the posts of Lecturer in various subjects including Sanskrit on honorarium'' basis. The petitioner submitted her application dated 12.11.2009 for appointment on honorarium basis on the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit.

It is further averred in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the petitioner was selected for appointment on honorarium basis on the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit.

It is, inter alia, further averred in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that the Committee of Management of the said institution sent the relevant papers to the Director, Higher Education, U. P., Allahabad by the letter dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), which was received by the Director on 27.11.2009. In paragraph 17 of the writ petition, it is, inter alia, averred that the approval has not so far been granted by the Director.

We have heard Shri A. N. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by Shri A, N. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved by disposing of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to make an application before the Director, Higher Education, U. P., Allahabad (respondent No. 2) alongwith a certified copy of this order, and directing the respondent No. 2 to take appropriate decision in the matter within a specified period.

We accordingly dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

Within three weeks from today, the petitioner will submit an application alongwith a certified copy of this order before the Director, Higher Education. U. P., Allahabad (respondent No. 2).

On receipt of such application, the Director, Higher Education, U. P., Lucknow (respondent No. 2) will take appropriate decision

In the matter of approval for the appointment of the petitioner on honorarium basis by passing a speaking order in accordance with law keeping in view the relevant Government orders including the Government order dated 7.4.1998 expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said application.

It is made clear that in case the respondent No. 2 has already taken a decision in the matter, he will not be required to pass fresh order in the matter.

It is further made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits.