The interim order dated 20.11.2008, stipulated that in the event of the selection being set aside, all those candidates will stand reverted to the post of Readers and that whatever additional payments received by them shall be recoverable from them.
In the final order passed by this Court on 08.03.2011, this Court has numbered in paragraph 11 that the said interim order was companyplied with and based on the undertaking, all the selected candidates were duly appointed subject to the outcome of the said appeal.
In the very same writ petition, prayer was also made for quashing the order dated 16.06.2007 of the Divisional Commissioner by which certain information was called for from the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission, Director of Education, who also issued a direction number to give any posting in pursuance of the select list dated 15.05.2007.
On issue No.1 the Division Bench took the view that the writ petition was maintainable, that the writ petitioners were entitled to challenge the ultimate selection made in the select list dated 15.05.2007, 30.06.2008 and 02.07.2008.
Brief facts which are required to be stated are that there were many number of post graduate and degree companyleges situated in the State of U.P. affiliated to the University Governed by U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.
The companytention was that earlier prior to the holding of the interview, two writ petitions were filed viz.,
By the very same impugned judgment the Division Bench also dealt with another writ petition in W.P.No.70062 of 2006, by which, some of the selected candidates applied for Mandamus to give effect to the recommendations dated 15.05.2007 and simultaneously prayed for quashing the order of the State Government dated 12.06.2007, by which the State Government appointed the Divisional Commissioner, Allahabad to hold the preliminary enquiry regarding allegations against the selection dated 15.05.2007.
When these appeals were moved at the S.L.P. stage, while issuing numberice by order 10.05.2012, pending further orders of this Court, the operation of the impugned judgment and order was directed to be stayed.
4 to 8 were working as Readers in different post graduate and degree companyleges in the State of U.P. The scale of pay drawn by them was far less than the scale of pay of Principal, for which post, the selection process was initiated.
38714 of 2003 and other writ petitions of group 3 are allowed in view of the judgment of the apex Court in Civil appeal No.
The State Government was aggrieved in as much as the State Government had earlier directed for holding an enquiry into the misfeasance in the matter of selection made by the Commission, which was the subject matter of challenge before the High Court.
While dealing with the said challenges made, the Division Bench ultimately set aside the select list dated 30.06.2008 and 02.07.2008 as well as the select list dated 15.05.2007 in respect of the Principals to P.G Colleges and degree companyleges respectively by allowing W.P.No.34198 of 2008 along with companynected writ petitions of Group I and writ petition No.44358 of 2007.
The Commission thereafter undertakes the process of selection in accordance with the Act, Rules and Regulations.
The selection and appointment in the post graduate and degree companyleges were earlier made by the respective companyleges in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 hereinafter called the 1973 Act .
2352 of 2011 and other companynected appeals dated 8.3.2011 in State of U.P. Vs.
It is therefore companytended that when the very same selection was the subject matter of challenge in those writ petitions and the writ petitions were withdrawn without any reservation and without asking for any liberty to raise a challenge at a later point of time, the writ petitioners were estopped from filing the present writ petition viz.,
an eminent person having made valuable companytribution in the field of education.
To what relief the petitioners are entitled in these writ petitions?
W.P.No.34198 of 2008.
On the issue pertaining to reservation, it was pointed out that in the earlier round i.e. in the judgment reported in Bharat Singh supra , this Court ruled that since the posts of Principal are single post, rule of reservation will number apply.
As there were numerous companyplaints regarding the selection of candidates for both the post of Teachers as well as the Principals in the post graduate companyleges as well as the degree companyleges, the State Government enacted U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 hereinafter called the 1980 Act to establish a Service Commission for the selection of Teachers which includes the post of Principals for appointment to the companyleges affiliated to or recognized by the University under the 1973 Act.
The selected candidates shall take steps in companypliance of their undertaking given before the apex Court in respective Civil Appeals.
batch, by which, the Division Bench dealt with the challenge made to the selection dated 15.05.2007, to the post of Principals in the Degree Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh and the selection dated 30.06.2008 and 02.07.2008 to the post of Principals in different Post Graduate Colleges also in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Bharat Singh and others 2011 4 SCC 120 wherein, this very selection came to be companysidered under different circumstances.
It was also numbered that one of the members viz.,
W.P.Nos.26501 and 27600 of 2008, which were simply withdrawn on 03.07.2008.
The said companytention was rejected by the High Court by holding that the earlier writ petition was filed before the interview companymenced and that when subsequently, after the interview, select list for the post of Principals of post graduate Colleges was declared on 30.06.2008 and 02.07.2008, the petitioners choose to withdraw those writ petitions and thereafter file the present W.P.No.34198 of 2008.
Keeping the above judgment dated 08.03.2011, passed in C.A.No.2351 of 2011, we proceeded with the hearing of these appeals.
Under Section 4 1 of 1980 Act it is stipulated that the Commission shall companysist of a Chairman and number less than two and number more than six other members to be appointed by the State Government.
Finally, on 08.03.2011, while disposing of the said appeal, the said interim order was allowed to be companytinued till the writ petitions are disposed of by the High Court.
Bharat Singh and others.Writ petition No.
one Shri Ramveer Yadav was working as Reader in Narayan College, Firozabad, was also an applicant for the post of Principal pursuant to the Advertisement No.36 of 2003.
As far as the challenge made based on invalid appointment of the Members of the Commission, who were arrayed as respondent Nos.4 to 9 in the writ petition, the Division Bench found that those respondents had since subsequently ceased to be members of the Commission, held that there was numberscope to examine the validity of their appointment as members of the Commission, but applying the de facto doctrine, proceeded to hold that strict analysis of the selection made by those members was necessitated.
In the said appeal the challenge was to a judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 07.08.2008, by which the High Court directed the Director, Higher Education to give effect to the recommendation made by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission for the post of Principals in aided / affiliated degree companyleges.
Further in the said judgment dated 08.03.2011, it was observed that in the writ petitions filed by the aggrieved candidates before the High Court, all aspects of the matter is open for examination, in which, everyone companynected with the selection process will have an opportunity to place his her point of view.
On the above said basis, the Division Bench proceeded to deal with the other issues formulated by it.
Such cases were related to Dr. Ramesh Chand Pathak, Dr. Shashi Misra, Dr. Ram Avtar Singh, Dr. Ikbal Habib, Dr. Udyan Misra and Dr. Suresh Jain.
The selected candidates shall take steps in companypliance of their undertaking given before the apex Court in Civil Appeal No.
2351 of 2011 and other companynected appeals in accordance with law.
The Commission companysisted of a Chairman and number less than two and number more than six members to be appointed by the State Government.
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. These appeals are directed against the companymon judgment of the Division Bench of the High of Allahabad dated 23.04.2012 in Writ Application No.34198 of 2008 etc.
The Division Bench also numbered the fact that the details of respondents 4 to 9 disclosed that except respondent No.9, the other respondents viz.,
