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
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:
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
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India
Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India
Benny T.D. v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India
Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab
Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta
Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana
Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi
Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India
Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission
Rama Shankar Rai v. State of U.P.
Sayeedur Rehman v. The State of Bihar
Sirsi Municipality v. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis
Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
State of Manipur v. Y. Token Singh
State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda
State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss.) Binapani Dei
Union of India v. Anand Kumar Pandey
Union of India v. O. Chakradhar
Union of India v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu
Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.