Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR. (SMT.) JYOTI RANI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dr. (Smt.) Jyoti Rani v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 62746 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3669 (29 September 2005)

 

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

- Honorarium COURT NO. 34

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 62746 OF 2005

Dr. (Smt) Jyoti Rani         -------------         Petitioner              

   Versus.

State of U.P. & Ors.          -------------        Respondents

_________

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble  Shishir Kumar, J.

(By Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.)

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated  4.3.2005 issued by the respondent no.2 (Annex. 6), by which the respondent no.4 has been granted approval to work as a Lecturer (Hindi) in Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad (in short, DAK College, Moradabad). The petitioner submits that one Smt Sweety Talwad was working as Lecturer in Hindi. She was selected by the Commission to the post of Principal and joined her post on 8.4.2002. She has not resigned from the said post of Lecturer and is actually working as a Principal on leave without pay. On the basis of the aforesaid vacancy, Committee of Management by an Advertisement dated 11.6.2003 advertised the said post in Amar Ujala. The petitioner as well as other candidates were considered and the name of the respondent no.4 was recommended by the respondent no.2 for appointment as Honorarium Lecturer (Hindi) in DAK College, Moradabad. The submission of the petitioner is that she is at Serial No. 1 in the Select List, therefore, the respondent no.2 cannot recommend the name of the respondent no.4 for Lecturer in Hindi for Honorarium.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He is not able to point out as on what date the Committee of Management had made the requisition to the U.P. Higher Education Services Selection Commission about the said vacancy, for the reason that unless the said communication is made to the Commission, question of filling up of the vacancy on ad hoc basis does not arise, nor the Committee of Management was competent to fill up the vacancy even on temporary basis. More so, a special body consisting of experts have assessed the suitability and merit of the petitioner as well as of the respondent no.4. It is neither desirable nor permissible for this Court to disturb the said assessment made by the  experts.

It is settled legal proposition that the Court should not interfere with the findings recorded by the experts committee, unless the same are found to be arbitrary. No case has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to that effect.  

It appears from the pleadings that without holding any procedure prescribed by law, or even without advertising the vacancy, petitioner had been appointed on honorarium basis, as pleaded by her in paragraph 2, without giving the date, on which she had been appointed, nor the reference to any advertisement, in pursuance of which she had been accorded appointment. She seems to have been replaced by another person (respondent no. 4) on honorarium basis, for the next academic session and the respondent no. 4 was accorded  approval by the educational authorities vide impugned order.

Even if petitioner had been appointed legally as her services were not governed by any statutory rules, she was bound by the terms and conditions incorporated in her appointment letter, there is no reason why the Court should not enforce the same. (Vide State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Surinder Kumar Singh & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 1593). If she had been appointed for a fixed tenure, it came to an end automatically and  it did not require any order of termination by the employer. (Vide Dr. L.P. Agarwal Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1992) 3 SCC 526; Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. Vs. Smt Pushpa Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 2070; and State of U.P.  & Anr. Vs. Dr. S.K. Sinha & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 768).

We do not see  any force in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that an ad hoc appointee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc, for the reason that, undoubtedly, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the said legal proposition in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 2130, but at the same time, we cannot ignore the government order, under which petitioner had been appointed. She has claimed to have been appointed on honorarium under the Government Order dated 7.4.1998 (Annex. 1). The paragraph 2 of the said order makes it clear that the appointment made on honorarium is co-terminus with the academic session and shall come to an end by 15th of June following the date of appointment. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of the said government order, nor she is permitted to challenge the same, as she had been appointed under the said order and accepted the appointment, if any, without any protest. Therefore, by application of the doctrine of the acquiescence, she cannot be permitted to raise any grievance in this regard.

More so, there may be logic behind such a provision that in case for the next academic session, a better candidate becomes available, it should be open to the institution to take the benefit of his services.

Be that as it may, vide impugned order, the educational authorities had accorded approval of appointment of the respondent no. 4 for the Academic Session 2004-2005, which is already over. No explanation worth the name has been given for approaching the Court at such a belated stage, challenging the order dated 4.3.2005, and that is too, for an academic session which is already over. There is nothing on record to show as who is working at present. Thus, this matter is not required to be dealt with, and petition becomes liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches.

In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief in a discretionary and equitable jurisdiction of this Court. Writ petition is  accordingly dismissed.  

29.9.2005

SB/AKSI


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

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.