Heard Dr. Sanjai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notices for opposite parties no.1, 2 & 4 have been accepted by the office of learned CSC. Sri Aswini Kumar Agnihotri has accepted notice for opposite party no.3.
In view of the proposed order, notices to opposite parties no.5, 6 & 7 are dispensed with as no prejudice is being caused to opposite parties no.5, 6 & 7 by this order.
The case set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has filed a writ petition Service Single No.8197 of 2019; Dr. Rajesh Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others and this Court vide order dated 26.3.2019 passed an order that the petitioner shall be entitled to the payment of regular salary on the post of Lecturer where he has been servicing i.e. K.S. Saket Post Graduate College, Ayodhya. For the convenience, the order dated 26.3.2019 passed in Service Single No.8197 of 2019, which is contained in Annexure No.3 to the writ petition, is being reproduced herein below:-
"Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singh learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for opposite party Nos. 1,2 and 4 and Sri Ashwani Kumar Agnihotri appearing for opposite party No.3.
Issue notice to opposite parties 5 and 6.
The present petition has been filed seeking the limited quashing of the list dated 7th March, 2019 whereby the petitioner after being absorbed on the post of Lecturer has been posted at Lal Bahadur Shastri Post Graduate College, Gonda from K.S. Saket Post Graduate College, Ayodhya where he was working on honorarium basis prior to the absorption.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even after absorption, he was liable to be continued on the same post and college where he was working prior to his absorption in terms of the judgment of this court dated 21st February, 2019 passed in Writ A No. 23461 of 2018 (Dr. Geetika Nagar versus State of U.P. and others) which in itself has been passed considering the directions of this court in the case of Dr. Vishwajeet Singh and others versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2009 (4) ADJ 373 whereby the Advertisement No.37 dated 9th July, 2003 so far as it advertised 467 vacancies arising till 30th June, 2003 due to death, resignation or retirement was quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his case is not covered by 371 carry forward vacancies which remained unfilled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon paragraphs 66 and 67 in the case of Dr. Geetika (supra) which provides for absorption of the unabsorbed teachers against the existing vacancies on the same post on which they were working.
In the supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for petitioner, a list dated 14th January, 2019 has been annexed indicting that the petitioner was appointed against the vacancy which became vacant on 30th June, 2001 on account of superannuation of one Dr. Chhedi Lal Gupta. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that therefore his case would be covered by the case of Dr. Geetika (supra).
Prima facie the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be correct and as such four weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel for opposite parties for filing counter affidavit. In the mean time the operation and implementation of the order dated 7th March, 2019 so far as it relates to the petitioner shall remain stayed.
It goes without saying that since the absorption order in itself has not been stayed and only the order pertaining to placement of the petitioner to Lal Bahadur Shastri College, Gonda has been stayed, the petitioner shall be entitled to the payment of regular salary on the post of Lecturer."
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that one Sri Rajeev Kumar has been posted on the post of Assistant Professor at K.S. Saket Post Graduate College, Ayodhya from the Commission on 18.3.2019, therefore, a peculiar situation has been emerged that pursuant to the order dated 26.3.2019 passed by this Court, the petitioner is discharging his duties at K.S. Saket Post Graduate College, Ayodhya and opposite party no.7 has also been posted at Ayodhya. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in this peculiar circumstances, the State Government may take appropriate decision placing the person, who has been selected from the Commission at any other place since the petitioner has got interim order from this Court.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties has, however, submitted that before the interim order dated 26.3.2019 could be passed, opposite party no.7 has been posted at Ayodhya, therefore, no order could be passed in favour of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.7, which is a representation of the petitioner dated 16.7.2019 preferred to the Joint Secretary, Higher Education, Anubhag-5, Department of Higher Education, U.P., Lucknow and as per learned counsel for the petitioner, no decision has been taken on the aforesaid representation, therefore, he has submitted that direction may be issued to the said authority to pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law.
Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, the Joint Secretary, Higher Education, Anubhag-5, Department of Higher Education, U.P., Lucknow is hereby directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 16.7.2019, if any, strictly in accordance with law, by speaking and reasoned order, by affording an opportunity of hearing to opposite party no.7 i.e. Rajeev Kumar, with expedition, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this Court and thereafter, decision thereof be intimated to the petitioner as well as to opposite party no.7.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 RBS/-
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]