Case Details

AJAI KUMAR SINGH versus V.C., MAHATMA GANDHI KASHI VIDHYA PEETH VARANASI AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement

Ajai Kumar Singh v. V.C., Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidhya Peeth Varanasi And Another - WRIT - A No. 12606 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 4013 (9 March 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12606 of 2007

Ajai Kumar Singh

Versus

Vice Chancellor,

Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth,

Varanasi, and another

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of order dated 10.11.2006 passed by respondent No.2, and further for issuing writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner on the post of Office Superintendent in the respondents institution from the date on which juniors to petitioner were promoted and pay all consequential benefits.

Earlier, petitioner had approached this Court by preferring writ petition No.54852 of 2006, Ajai Kumar Singh v. Vice Chancellor and others, wherein this Court had commanded the Vice Chancellor to take decision in the matter. Thereafter decision has been taken and communication has been sent to petitioner. Impugned order in question reflects that as per the First Statute of the University, the post of Office Superintendent is to be filled up by way of promotion and in this regard, written examination was conducted on 09.11.2005. This fact has not been disputed by the petitioner that he did not appear in the written examination held on 09.11.2005. It has been contended by petitioner that he was not aware of the examination dated 09.11.2005. Theory set up by petitioner is unbelievable that written examination for the post of Office Superintendent took place, wherein all other incumbents appeared and petitioner could not appear for want of knowledge. In the present case on the basis of written examination held on 09.11.2005 selection of Office Superintendent has been made. In this background, as selection has been held on the basis of examination, petitioner has not at all participated in the same and coupled with this, as petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and none of the selected candidates has been impleaded and arrayed as respondents in the present writ petition, there is no infirmity in the decision which has been taken.

Much stress has been laid on the fact that this Court had directed the Vice Chancellor to look into the matter, and the matter has been adjudicated by Registrar. Finding of fact, which has been returned by Registrar has not at all been disputed except that petitioner had no knowledge of the date of examination. In respect of Ministerial Staff, Registrar is the Competent Authority and once Competent Authority has taken decision, and there is no lack of authority to take decision, and the said decision does not suffer from any infirmity, then if there is some infirmity, this Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction can always refuse to interfere in the matter and exercise its discretion. Apart from this, this is well settled that Courts cannot create jurisdiction. Here, this Court had asked the matter to be looked into by Vice Chancellor. Vice Chancellor remitted the matter to competent authority i.e. the Registrar, who in his turn has taken rightful decision.

Writ petition lacks substance, and the same is dismissed.

09.03.2007

SRY

Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Case Details

Case Law Search

Judgement

Copyright

Advertisement