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

2013 Supreme(SC) 1415

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi, Ranjana Prakash Desai, JJ.
Mahipal Singh Tomar - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4585 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 16422 of 2011) Civil Appeal No. 4586 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 16485 of 2011) Civil Appeal No. 4587 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 17387 of 2011) Civil Appeal No. 4588 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 17388 of 2011) Civil Appeal No. 4589 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 17410 of 2011) Civil Appeal No. 4590 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 17415 of 2011) Civil Appeal No. 4591 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 17438 of 2011) Civil Appeal No. 4592 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20092 of 2011) Civil Appeal No. 4593 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20094 of 2011)
Decided On : 09-05-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner in SLP(C)16388 of 11:- R. Venkatramani, Sr. Advocate, Neeraj Kr. Sharma, Vinay Kumar Garg, Neelam Singh, Supriya Garg, Priyanka Dixit, Advocates.
For the Petitioner in SLP(C)16422 of 11:- Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, Devashish Bharuka, Advocate.
For the Petitioner in SLP(C)16485 of 11:- S.P.Singh, Sr. Advocate, T. Anamika, S.K.Bajwa, Advocates.
For the Petitioner In SLP(C)17410 of 11:- P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate.
For the Petitioner in 17415 of 11 and 17438 of 11:- Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Advocate, Ajai Bhalla, Abha R. Sharma, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Nitin Singh, Advocates.
For the Petitioner in in SLP(C)20092 of 11:- Ramkishor Singh Yadav, Mahendra Yadav, E.V.Venugopal, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocates.
For the Petitioner in SLP(C)17387 of 11:- Charu Mathur, Advocate.
For the Respondents:- Shobha Dixit, Sr. Advocate.
For the State :- M.R. Shamshad, Malvika Trivedi, Shashank, Advocates
For the Respondents No. 4 in SLP(C) 16485 of 11:- Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Advocate, Pramod Dayal, Nikunj Dayal, Advocates.
For the Respondents No. 5 in SLP(C)16388 of 11:- Balraj Dewan and O.N.Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents in SLP(C)16422 of 11:- Jyoti Chahar and Vivek Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondents in SLP(C)17387 of 11:- Gaurav Jain and Abha Jain, Advocates
For the Respondents in SLP(C)17438 of 11:- Ameet Singh, Praveen Swarup, Mukul Singh and Pahlad Singh Sharma, Advocates.
For the Intervenor in SLP(C)17415 of 11 :- A.S.Pundir, Saurabh Trivedi and Vikash Singh, Advocates.

Headnote:

Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 – Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 – Provisions of the Act, 1980 – Appeals are directed against orders of the Allahabad High Court whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed and the termination of their services from the posts of Principals was upheld – In response to advertisement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commission for recruitment of Principals for Post Graduate Degree Colleges and Degree Colleges (Aided and Unaided), the appellants submitted their respective applications for the posts for which they were qualified – They were selected by the Commission and their names were included in the select list published –Held, Three judgments relied upon by the High Court for rejecting the appellants contention on the issue of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem are clearly distinguishable – In all the cases, this Court had found that the appointments of the appellants were contrary to law and the constitutional code of equality – It was also found that the appellants did not fulfil the conditions of eligibility – In the background of the factual matrix of those cases, this Court upheld the action taken by the employer to terminate the services of the appellants. On a factual plane, there is no similarity between the cases of the appellants and those relied upon by the High Court – Therefore, the principle that the Court will not restore an illegal order could not have been invoked by the High Court for defeating the rights acquired by the appellants on the basis of their selection by the Commission – Appeals are allowed.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against orders of the Allahabad High Court whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed and the termination of their services from the posts of Principals was upheld.

3. In response to advertisement dated 13.8.1998 issued by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commission (for short, 'the Commission') for recruitment of Principals for Post Graduate Degree Colleges and Degree Colleges (Aided and Unaided), the appellants submitted their respective applications for the posts for which they were qualified. They were selected by the Commission and their names were included in the select list published on 16/18.4.2001.

4. The Director, Higher Education, U.P. (for short, 'the Director') issued orders for placement of the appellants in the position of Principals of various Colleges. In some cases, the Management of the concerned Colleges did not issue orders appointing the appellants. In other cases, the appellants either voluntarily sought change of the placement or the Director suo motu changed the placement. After joining their respective positions, most of the appellants were confirmed by the Management of the concerned Colleges.

5. On receipt of complaints alleging large scale irregularities in the placement of selected candidates in different Colleges, the State Government directed District Magistrate, Allahabad to conduct an inquiry and submit report. The latter examined the relevant records and submitted report dated 4.2.2005 with the finding that the placement of the candidates was contrary to the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (for short, 'the 1980 Act') and the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (for short, 'the 1973 Act') and was wholly illegal and arbitrary. The District Magistrate also found that in some cases, the candidates were given placement against non-existent posts in violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, AIR 1968 SC 1012.

6. In view of the fact finding report submitted by the District Magistrate, the State Government issued directions for cancellation of placement of the appellants and others on the posts of Principals. The Director faithfully implemented the directive of the State Government and issued letter dated 6.8.2005 to the Management of the Colleges to terminate the services of the appellants. For the sake of reference, the letter written by the Director to the Manager, D. N. College, Gulaothi, Bulandshahr (respondent No. 5 in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 16388/2011) is reproduced below:

    "From,

    Director, (Higher Education)

    U.P.Allahabad

    To,

    Manager,

    D.N.College, Gulaothi,

    Bulandshahr

    Letter: Degree Arth-I/Ayog/2005-06 dated

    06.08.2005.

    Subject : Regarding terminating the appointment of Dr.Mahipal Singh Tamar as Principal of D.N.College, Gulaothi, Bulandshahr, which is not as per the law.

    In reference to above subject, it is directed by the Govt. letter No. 3009/70-2-2005-06 (14)/2003 dated 29.07.2005 that on receiving the complaints as to involvement of some extraneous considerations in the appointments and postings of the Principals, selected by the Commission, Government got conducted an inquiry by Distt. Magistrate, Allahabad. After the perusal of inquiry report it was found that Dr. Mahipal Singh Tamar was selected as Principal under advertisement No. 25 in the category of Graduate (Male), advertised by the Higher Education Service Commission, was appointed as Principal in the unadvertised Dev Nagri College, Gulaothi, Bulandshahr vide letter dated 10.04.2003 issued by the Director Higher Education, which is contrary to the provisions of under Section 13(3) of the Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 and being wrongly explained the order passed in Alka Rani Gupta case dated 27.02.2003 and by violating the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7904/1996 titled as Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Y

                                          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