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

2000 Supreme(All) 349

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. H. A. Raza and Krishna Kumar, JJ.
SURAJ PAL SHAKYA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 23685 Of 1997
Decided On : 02/28/2000

Advocates Appeared:
A.P.SAHI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, DINESH DWIVEDI, K.P.SHUKLA, P.S.Baghel, Prem Prakash, Ranjit Saxena, V.B.SINGH

The main legal point established is the autonomy of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission and the limitations on the State Government's power to interfere with the Commission's selection process.

Headnote:

Commission - Selection Process - U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 - Section 2 of the Corporation Act, 1975 - Sections 11, 12, 13 of the Commission Act, 1980 - The court discussed the provisions of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, and the Corporation Act, 1975, and their implications on the selection process. It highlighted the autonomy of the Commission, its statutory duties, and the limitations on the State Government's power to interfere with the selection process.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged government orders suspending the selection process for the post of Principal by the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission. The State Government issued orders directing the Commission to stop the selection process and initiated an enquiry into alleged irregularities.

Finding of the Court:

The Division Bench found that the State Government's orders interfering with the Commission's selection process were against the legislative policy under the Commission Act. It also held that the removal of the Chairman and members of the Commission was void in law. The court directed the State Government to reinstate the petitioners and quashed the impugned orders.

Issues: The issues involved the State Government's authority to interfere with the Commission's selection process and the validity of the removal of the Chairman and members of the Commission.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Commission is an independent and autonomous statutory body with the duty to perform functions and duties in an independent and objective manner. It emphasized the limitations on the State Government's power to interfere with the Commission's legislative functions.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, quashing the impugned orders and directing the State Government to reinstate the petitioners and implement the selection process.

S. H. A. RAZA, J.


( 1 ) PRESENT writ petition has been filed by the persons, who were selected by the U. P. Higher education Services Commission, (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), assailing the government Order dated 1. 4. 1997, by means of which the selection process, on receipt of certain complaints were suspended on 11. 4. 1997. Similar orders passed by the State Government were also challenged by the petitioners, wherein it was stated that the State Government, on receipt of certain complaints regarding irregularities committed by Commission in the selection on the post of Principal, directed that the selection be not made without previous approval of the State government. It was further directed that the Commission shall, without previous approval of the state Government in writing, take no steps to make the selection of the candidates by direct recruitment for appointment in substantive vacancies of the Principal between April 2 to 5, 1997 and shall not prepare any panel of the candidates. But, it was provided that the notification shall not apply in respect of selection to the post of Principal of D. V. Post Graduate College at Oral.

( 2 ) BEFORE dealing with the questions involved in the writ petition, it is relevant to state the background, in which the impugned orders were passed ; that on 5. 12. 1996, the Director of U. P. Higher Education intimated to the Commission for the post of Principal in graduate and post-graduate College. In pursuance of the said intimation, the Commission on 13. 12. 96 issued advertisement Nos. 22 and 23 of 1996 for making selection on various posts of Principal. The requisition was also sent to the Commission for making selection on the post of lecturers and the commission issued advertisement for the same on 13. 12. 1996.

( 3 ) THE process of selection was expedited by the Commission for the reason that in writ petition bearing No. 19557 of 1997, which was decided on 20. 9. 96 and the High Court issued directions to complete the process of regular selection within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order and the management was to send requisition within a week from the date of the certified copy of the order.

( 4 ) AFTER issuing the advertisement the process of selection was set into motion, large number of applications were received and after (c) short-listing of the candidates who did not come within the field of eligibility, the candidates were invited for interview. The first phase of selection on the post of Principal commenced from April 2, 1997 and culminated on 5. 4. 97. At the time of interview, besides the member of the Commission, expert were also present.

( 5 ) AS soon as the Commission commenced interview on April 2, 1997, the Commission received a latter from the State Government dated 1. 4. 1997 to stay the process of selection. In view of the fact that the State Government received complaints on 2. 4. 1997, the Commission sent reply to the State Government that the selection process had commenced and it was not possible for the commission to stop the same in public interest. The Commission also intimated to the State government that the selection was being carried out in pursuance of the directions of Allahabad high Court in writ petition bearing No. 19557 of 1996, whereby the Court had directed that the selection in respect of vacancies existing in several institutions, would be made and the State government would make endeavour to cooperate with the Commission so that the selection be completed. Letter also indicated that the selection process was started in pursuance of the order of the High Court and if that would not be completed within the specified period, that would amount to contempt of court. Thereafter, on 11. 4. 1997 the notification, as stated hereinbefore was issued by the State Government. In the said notification post of Principal of D. V. Post graduate College, Jalaun at Orai, was exempted because the direction of the



































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top