High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Rajni Dwivedi v. Director Of Education (higher Education) Allahabad - WRIT - A No. 58693 of 2005  RD-AH 3321 (21 September 2005)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58693 of 2005
Smt. Rajni Dwivedi
The Director of Education (Higher) Education, U.P., Allahabad
Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble Shishir Kumar, J.
This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to give the placement to the petitioner either at Udai Pratap (Post Graduate) College, Varanasi or Harish Chandra (Post Graduate) College, Varanasi.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner has been selected on the post of Lecturer in pursuance of the selection held under the provisions of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, hereinafter called the ''Act'. Vide order dated 23rd June, 2005, the petitioner was given placement in National P.G. College, Barhalganj, Gorakhpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has approached the Committee of Management of the said College but they did not issue the appointment letter. Hence this petition has been filed to give placement to the petitioner in either of the aforesaid two Colleges, as it would be convenient for the petitioner, as her husband is also working in one of Colleges in Varanasi.
Shri Amit Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the Committee of Management has refused to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner in pursuance of her placement by the Statutory Authority, considering the interest and convenience of the petitioner, she may be given placement in either of the aforesaid Colleges in Varanasi.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the writ petition vehemently submitting that there is no provision under the Act to chose a place of posting. It is in accordance with the merit of a candidate taking into consideration the choice given by him/her. Therefore, neither the convenience of a candidate nor the working of other spouse is relevant. The Court is not competent to grant a relief outside the Statute or in contravention of the Statute. Thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly, the petitioner had been given placement and in case the Committee of Management is not issuing the appointment letter, it is open for the petitioner to make a proper representation before the Statutory Authority to enforce its recommendation and in case such a representation is made, the Statutory Authority is directed to take appropriate action as provided under Section 15 of the Act and ensure not only the appointment but payment of salary also to the petitioner as early as possible. It is also open to the appropriate authority to invoke the provisions of Sections 57 and 58 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 to ensure the compliance of the order of placement and get the petitioner appointed, if so required, in the said College. However, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted.
With these observations, the petition stands disposed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.