Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17795 of 2011 Petitioner :- Dr. Chandra Kant Mani Mishra Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- T.B. Pandey,Ashish Jaiswal,Durgesh Kumar,Nand Kumar Shukla,Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi,Randhir Jain Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C.,A.K. Yadav,Hridai Narain Pandey,Manish Trivedi
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the Management, Sri H.N. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and learned Standing Counsel.
The reliefs claimed in this writ petition read thus:-
"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record and quash the selection proceeding held on 13-3-2011 for to appoint the principal in the respondent no.4 institution by the selection board.
2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to rescheduled the interview for the post of principal in respondent no.4 institution after calling petitioner for to participate in that."
The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Lecturer in the respondent institution in 2004. He assails the selection of the fifth respondent as the Principal of the institution. The fifth respondent came to be selected and appointed as Principal pursuant to a selection initiated in 2011 by the Board. The petitioner asserts that at the relevant time, he was the senior most teacher in the institution and the Management arbitrarily did not send his name for consideration for appointment as Principal. When the writ petition was initially entertained on 28 March 2011, a learned Judge provided that any appointment made on the post of Principal would abide by the final result of this writ petition. Pursuant to the selection proceedings which was initiated, admittedly the fifth respondent came to be appointed as the Principal. He was, however, impleaded on this writ petition pursuant to an application which was allowed in 2017.
The Management and respondent No.5 by way of their counter affidavits disclose that one Sri Chandra Prakash Singh was appointed as a regular Principal of the institution and worked as such from November 1990 till he retired from service on 30 June 2001. The charge of Officiating Principal was thereafter stated to have been handed over to one Sri Tribhuwan Nath Singh who was the senior most teacher. The Management forwarded a requisition for appointment of a regular Principal on 10 July 2002. Along with that requisition, the Management also included the names of the then existing two senior most teachers. The respondents further disclose that in the institution in question there was only one sanctioned post of lecturer against which the petitioner was appointed and as such the question of inter se seniority would not arise.
From the aforesaid recordal of facts, it is manifest that the requisition for appointment of a permanent Principal was sent in July 2002. At that time, the petitioner had not even been appointed. As noted above, he was appointed as a Lecturer only in 2004. The Board had proceeded to undertake a regular selection process pursuant to the requisition which was sent originally in 2002. The private respondent came to be appointed as a Principal as an outcome of that selection. Viewed in that light it is manifest that the appointment of the said respondent cannot be assailed by the petitioner merely because he came to be appointed between the period when the requisition was sent and the selection ultimately made. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds no error in the selection and appointment of the fifth respondent.
The writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 Rakesh