Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2755 of 2019 Petitioner :- C/M, Arya Kanya Post Graduate Deree College, Jhansi And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kashif Zaidi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Following orders were passed in the matter on 21.2.2019:-
"Previous Writ Petition No.17770 of 2016 filed by the petitioners' institution was disposed of by this Court on 20.4.2018. The claim set up by the petitioners has been rejected pursuant to the said order passed, by the Director, Higher Education, on 17.9.2018. The order records that by virtue of a direction issued under Section 50(6) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, all Universities have been directed to incorporate a provision of outsourcing and, therefore, it would not be open to consider plea for grant of approval against Class-IV vacancies.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government Order, relied upon in this regard, has been issued in the year 2015,whereas, the appointment itself was formalized in the year 2010. Submission is that validity of appointment would have to be tested with reference to the law existing on the date of appointment and not on the basis of subsequent of Government Orders, which otherwise have no retrospective effect.
Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions in the matter. Put up as fresh on 28.2.2019."
Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions from the Director of Higher Education as per which at the relevant point of time requisite information desired from the petitioner vide letter dated 4.10.2010, was not furnished then, and that as on date the post can only be outsourced.
So far as the provision for outsourcing of class IV post is concerned, such provision has been directed to be introduced only vide order dated 24.2.2015. Such provision can be enforced only after 24.2.2015. The selections which have already been made, as is the case herein, would not get invalidated only because of subsequent introduction of the provision for the post to be outsourced. Such provision is otherwise not shown to be retrospective. The ground to non-suit petitioner's claim in that regard therefore cannot be sustained.
The authority concerned was expected to decide the merits of the selection with reference to the provisions applicable when such selections were held. Any subsequent provision in that regard would not be a relevant factor and the order passed for such reasons cannot be sustained. So far as the details of selections etc. are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such details have already been furnished to the authority concerned.
In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner Committee of Management is permitted to submit details as have been desired vide letter dated 4.10.2010, again before the authority concerned, alongwith certified copy of this order, within a period of three weeks from today. If that is done, a fresh decision would be taken by the Director concerned by passing a reasoned order, within a further period of three months, thereafter. In order to facilitate a fresh consideration of cause and also for the reason that the ground for rejection of petitioner's claim is otherwise unsustainable, the order impugned dated 17.9.2018 stands quashed.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 Ashok Kr.