High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Vyas Ji Tiwari v. Chancellor, Sampurananad Sanskrit & Others - WRIT - A No. 17174 of 1997  RD-AH 3031 (8 February 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17174 of 1997
Vyas Ji Tiwari
Chancellor, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya,
Varanasi & Ors.
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13th February, 1997 passed by the Chancellor of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi and for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to work as the Principal of Sri Chhiteshwar Nath Sanskrit Pathshala, Chitbaragaon, District Ballia (hereinafter referred to as the ''Sanskrit Pathshala').
The petitioner who was appointed as the Assistant Teacher in the aforesaid Sanskrit Pathshala was directed to work as the Officiating Principal by the order dated 1st July, 1986 on account of the retirement of the regular Principal. He continued to work as the Officiating Principal for a long period of about six years when the management of the Sanskrit Pathshala issued an advertisement on 1st September, 1992 to fill up the vacancy. The selection committee met on 31st December, 1992 and recommended the name of respondent no.6 Shri Hari Narain Tiwari for appointment to the post of Principal. The Vice-Chancellor of the University granted approval to the aforesaid appointment on 31st January, 1993 and thereafter Shri Tiwari was appointed as the Principal of the Sanskrit Pathshala. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a representation before the Chancellor of the University under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 which has been rejected by the order dated 13th January, 1997. It is this order which has been impugned in the present petition.
A perusal of the order passed by the learned Chancellor of the University indicates that a finding has been recorded that the petitioner was not a person aggrieved since he had not submitted any application for appointment pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Sanskrit Pathshala. A further finding has been recorded that respondent no.6 possessed the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Principal.
The records of this petition reveal that the petitioner was directed to serve respondent no.3 namely the Committee of Management of the Sanskrit Pathshala and though the petitioner did obtain the Dasti Notices on 30th May, 1997 but the petitioner has not filed any affidavit of service which may indicate that respondent no.3 has been served. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Committee of Management, he sent the application form along with the requisite documents by registered post on 18th September, 1992 but he was not called to appear before the Selection Committee even though he possessed the requisite qualifications. He has also submitted that the appointment of respondent no.6 was bad in law since he did not possess the requisite qualifications. Shri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University has, however, submitted that the petitioner has not sought the quashing of the order appointing respondent no.6 to the post of Principal and as such no relief can be granted to the petitioner. He has further stated that as the petitioner had not submitted any application for seeking appointment to the post of Principal, he cannot be permitted to challenge the appointment of respondent no.6 and the Chancellor of the University has rightly rejected the representation since the petitioner was not a person aggrieved.
I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record.
It was incumbent upon the petitioner to have taken steps to serve respondent no.3 as was ordered by this Court on 20th May, 1997 but as the records indicate the petitioner has not served the said respondent even though most of the averments were required to be answered by the said respondent. This apart, the petitioner has not even annexed the representation dated 9th February, 1993 which is the representation which the petitioner had filed before the Chancellor of the University under Section 68 of the Act as has been stated by him in paragraph 16 of the petition. The representation dated 9th February, 1993 filed by the petitioner before the learned Chancellor of the University would have indicated whether the petitioner had made any factual averment about the sending of the application form by registered post on 18th September, 1992. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that he had also submitted a representation dated 8th January, 1993 to the Vice-Chancellor of the University with a copy of the Chancellor of the University and a copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure ''9' to the petition. In the said representation the petitioner has not stated that he had sent the application form by registered post on 18th September, 1992 as is now sought to be contended in this petition. Only a statement had been made by him in the said representation that pursuant to the advertisement, he had filled up the application form but he was not called for interview. It must also be noticed that the petitioner has not even annexed a copy of the purported application form which he claims to have sent. This would have indicated that at least the petitioner had obtained it for submission.
This apart, the petitioner was already working as the Officiating Principal in the Sanskrit Pathshala and, therefore, in normal circumstances any person who had submitted the application form, but had not been called for interview would have certainly objected before the Management but the petitioner did not do so prior to the meeting of the Selection Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that in fact he had no knowledge of the date when the Selection Committee would meet but this statement cannot be believed in the light of the averments made in paragraph 13 of the petition. In the said paragraph it has been stated that even the name of the experts sent by the University were known to everybody and it was also known that respondent no.6 Shri Hari Narain Tiwari was likely to be appointed to the post of Principal. If the petitioner was aware of these facts then it is difficult to believe that he did not know about the date when the Selection Committee would meet.
There is substance also in the submission of Sri Anil Tiwari for the University that in the absence of any relief for quashing the order of appointment of respondent no.6 the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue as the Principal of the Sanskrit Pathshala.
In such circumstances, particularly when the petitioner has not taken steps to serve respondent no.3 which alone could have adequately replied to the averments made in the Writ Petition, I am not inclined to believe that the petitioner submitted any application form for being considered for the post of Principal of the Sanskrit Pathshala. The petitioner is, therefore, not a person aggrieved who can challenge the appointment of respondent no.6.
One more fact that needs to be mentioned is that respondent no.6 has continued to work as a Principal in Sanskrit Pathshala for all these 14 years. Thus, also no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.