High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Bhupendra Singh v. Director Of Higher Education And Ors. - WRIT - A No. 5999 of 1991  RD-AH 13613 (7 August 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5999 of 1991
Director of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad and others
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
On a post of Librarian having fallen vacant in the institution of the respondent no. 3, after obtaining sanction for filling up the vacancy, an advertisement was issued in the two newspapers, in response to which the petitioner and some other candidates had applied. The Selection Committee constituted consisted of three members which included one nominee of the Director of Education. The Director of Education had nominated the Assistant Director of Education Dr. S.S. Tandon as a member of the Selection Committee. With the consent of the Director's nominee a date for selection was fixed for 27.10.1990. On the said date the meeting had been postponed because Dr. Tandon did not attend the meeting. Thereafter despite several letters, when there was no response from Dr. Tandon, a letter was sent to him by registered post, which was received by him on 30.12.1991, whereby the date fixed for selection was 6.1.1991. On this date again the said nominee of the Director of Education did not attend the meeting. However, since the intimation had been sent to the candidates on 6.1.1991, the two other members of the Selection Committee proceeded with the selection process in which the petitioner was found most suitable and was thus selected. The Committee of Management thereafter passed a resolution on 13.1.1991 in favour of the appointment of the petitioner as Librarian and thereafter issued appointment letter on 16.1.1991, in pursuance to which the petitioner joined the post on 17.1.1991. The papers relating to the appointment of the petitioner were sent to the Director of Education for grant of financial approval. By order dated 8.2.1991 the Director of Education has refused to grant financial approval on the ground that the nominee of the Director was not present in the meeting of the Selection Committee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 8.2.1991, this writ petition has been filed. A further prayer has been made that financial approval be granted and the petitioner be paid his salary.
I have heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.
By an interim order granted by this Court on 6.5.1991 the operation of the order dated 8.2.1991 had been stayed and the petitioner was permitted to continue to work on the post of Librarian and be paid his salary. The said stay order was confirmed by this Court vide order dated 4.2.2000. It has thus been submitted that the petitioner has been continuously working and is being paid his salary.
From the record it appears that the nominee of the Director of Education did not appear on more than one occasion on the date fixed for the meeting of the Selection Committee. It was only in such circumstances that the remaining two members of the Selection Committee proceeded with the selection process. It is not denied that the nominee of the Director of Education did not have information of the meeting nor has any good ground been given for such nominee not attending the meeting of the Selection Committee. The nomination of a member of the Selection Committee is made by the Director of Education to ensure that the selection process is conducted fairly. It is not for the purposes of delaying the selection, as has been done in the present case as the nominee, despite notice, did not attend the meetings of the Selection Committee. In such circumstances, when for no good reason the nominee of the Director of Education had absented himself from the meeting of the Selection Committee, the Director of Education cannot take this as a ground for refusing to grant financial approval, unless there was any finding to the effect that the selection process was not conducted fairly.
In the aforesaid circumstances the passing of the impugned order dated 8.2.1991 does not appear to be justified and is liable to be quashed. The petitioner having been appointed on a sanctioned post and after due selection, would also be entitled to salary, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 8.2.1991 passed by the Director of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad is quashed.
It has come on record that the petitioner is being paid salary and has also been given the benefit of revised pay scale. As such, it is directed the respondents shall continue to pay salary to the petitioner, in accordance with law and treat the petitioner to be in regular service. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.