SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 253

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
KRISHNA NAND SHUKLA – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2544-2545 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NOS. 16537-16538 OF 2016)
Decided on : 06-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv. Ms. Ridhima Singh, Adv. Mrs. Veera Kaul Singh, Adv. Ms. Vijaya Singh, Adv. For M/S. Vidhi International.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court unless looks into facts of appellant’s case and pleadings made therein writ petition could not have been decided.

Headnote:Service Law – Salary – Appellant claims ad hoc appointment on post of Lecturer, Military Science in a Post Graduate College Affiliated to Gorakhpur University – High Court unless looks into facts of appellant’s case and pleadings made therein writ petition could not have been decided – Error committed by High Court in deciding writ petition was brought into notice of High Court by filing detailed review application after withdrawing SLP from this Court but review application was dismissed by non-speaking order without adverting to specific grounds raised in review application – Ends of justice would be served in setting aside judgment and order of High court and remitting the matter to High Court to decide writ petition afresh on the basis of pleadings on record – High Court shall now proceed to decide writ petition afresh on merits in accordance with law – Claim of petitioner for payment of salary or claim for regularization shall be dependent on outcome of Writ Petition – Impugned judgment and order set aside. [Constitution of India – Article 226] (Paras 14 and 15)

       Facts of Case:

       Appellant claims ad hoc appointment on post of Lecturer, Military Science in a Post Graduate College Affiliated to Gorakhpur University. These two appeals have been filed against judgment of Allahabad High Court dated 06.10.2015 dismissing Writ Petition No.29473 of 1999 and order dated 09.03.2016 rejecting Review Application No.421500 of 2015 filed by appellant.

       Findings of Court:

       High Court unless looks into facts of appellant’s case and pleadings made therein writ petition could not have been decided. judgment of High Court deciding Writ Petition No.29473 of 1999 without referring to pleadings in writ petition i.e. pleadings in counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit, cannot be upheld.

       Result : Appeals disposed of.

       

JUDGMENT

Ashok Bhushan, J.

Leave granted.

2. These two appeals have been filed against judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 06.10.2015 dismissing the Writ Petition No. 29473 of 1999 and order dated 09.03.2016 rejecting Review Application No. 421500 of 2015 filed by the appellant.

3. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the appeals are:

The appellant claims to be appointed on 02.08.1991 by the Management of Jawaharlal Nehru Smarak Post Graduate College (Affiliated to Gorakhpur University,Gorakhpur. The appellant's case is that an advertisement was issued on 22.06.1991 in the newspaper-Hindi Dainik, Gorakhpur in response to which he applied for the post of Professor Defence Studies. The Registrar of the University nominated an expert for appointment. By its letter dated 09.10.1991, based on the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 22.07.1991 the appointment of the appellant was approved on ad hoc basis by the University for a period of six months or until a regular teacher is selected by the Commission, whichever was earlier. By a subsequent letter dated 29.11.1991 ad hoc appointment of appellant was re-approved until a candidate duly selected by the Selection Commission takes charge on the post. The appellant's further case is that by letter dated 09.02.1996 a post of Lecturer Military Science was created in the College. Appellant's case was that he received salary from the College till April, 1998 and thereafter due to the dispute between Committee of Management his salary was not paid. Writ Petition No.29473 of 1999 was filed by the appellant in the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus commandingthe respondents to pay salary to the petitioner on month to month basis as Lecturer, Military Science and not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as Lecturer, Military Science. An interim order was passed on 20.07.1999 in pursuance of which salary was started being paid to the appellant.

4 . A counter-affidavit was filed by Assistant Director of Education in the writ petition where the claim of the appellant was refuted and it was mentioned that the claim of the appellant had already been rejected by order dated 28.07.2005. It was pleaded that although appellant claimed his appointment as ad hoc Lecturer, Military Science on 02.08.1991 whereas post for Military Science was created only on 09.02.1996. The State has no liability to pay salary in view of the provision of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, Section 60E and 60A(vi). It was also pleaded that the petitioner was not appointed following the due procedure. The writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 06.10.2015. The High Court referred to paragraph 3(h) and 3(i) of the counter-affidavit and paragraph 6 of the rejoinder-affidavit of the petitioner. The High Court held that the appointment made without advertisement is void. Challenging the order dated 06.10.2015 an SLP was filed by the appellant in this Court. The SLP was dismissed by this Court on 30.11.2015 by following order:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner says that there is an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as there is no paragraph 3(i) in the counter affidavit filed by the State Government nor is there any paragraph 6 of the rejoinder affidavit, as quoted in the impugned order. He says that he would like to file a review petition.

Liberty granted.

The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

In case, the review petition is dismissed, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the impugned order before this Court."

5. After the above order of this Court dated 30.11.2015 the appellant filed a review application in the High Court. The review application has been dismissed by the High Court by a non-speaking order dated 09.03.2016. The appellant aggrieved by the order dismissing the review application as well as the main judgment dated 06.10.2015 dismissing the writ petition has filed these two appeals.

6. Shri Vishwa













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top