Back
1998 Supreme(All) 713
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. R. K. Trivedi and Dev Kant Trivedi, JJ.
RAM ROOP SHUKLA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 39025 Of 1997
Decided On : 07/20/1998
K.P.SHUKLA, N.MISHRA, R.K.OJHA, S.P.SINGH, V.K.SHUKLA
A person who is not qualified to hold the office of the Principal cannot challenge the appointment of a duly selected candidate.
Headnote:
PRINCIPAL APPOINTMENT - HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICE COMMISSION ACT, 1980 - SECTION 13 - Appointment of Principal - Selection Process - Qualifications - Interim Orders - Abuse of Process of Law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Dr. Ram Roop Shukla, challenged the appointment of Dr. Ramacharya Misra as the Principal of Nagrik Degree College, Janghai. The petitioner claimed that he was entitled to continue as the Principal till a regularly selected candidate is appointed and that the appointment of Dr. Misra was illegal. The respondents contended that the petitioner was not qualified to hold the office of the Principal, that he had failed in the selection process, and that his appointment was based on interim orders obtained by playing fraud on the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner was not qualified to hold the office of the Principal as he lacked the essential qualifications prescribed by the Gorakhpur University. The Court also found that the petitioner had availed the opportunity of applying for selection to the post of Principal and had failed in the selection process. The Court further found that the petitioner had obtained interim orders by playing fraud on the Court and had abused the process of law by filing successive writ petitions without disclosing the filing of previous writ petitions.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was qualified to hold the office of the Principal? 2. Whether the appointment of Dr. Misra was illegal? 3. Whether the petitioner had abused the process of law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner was not qualified to hold the office of the Principal as he lacked the essential qualifications prescribed by the Gorakhpur University. 2. The Court held that the appointment of Dr. Misra was not illegal as he was a duly selected candidate and had been recommended by the Director of Higher Education. 3. The Court held that the petitioner had abused the process of law by filing successive writ petitions without disclosing the filing of previous writ petitions.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition with costs.
( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner Dr. Ram Roop Shukla has prayer for quashing of the order dated 2. 11. 1997 passed by the Director of Higher Education an the basis of which the manager respondent No. 5 issued an order appointing the respondent No. 6 Dr. Ramacharya misra as the Principal of Nagrik Degree College, Janghai (hereinafter referred to as the College ).
( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that on a permanent post of Principal in the College, the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis for the period till any regularly selected candidate is selected by the Higher Education Service Commission and joins the post. The petitioner claimed benefit of regularisation of service in terms of the Clause 31 (C) of Higher Education Service Commission and has also filed a writ petition No. 33441 of 1992 which was decided on 24. 10. 1997 wherein it was held that the benefits of regularisation as the Principal was not available. The respondent no. 4, Higher Education Service, issued an advertisement and declared resolution 15. 5. 1993. No selection, however, could take place against the post of Principal of the College on account of an interim order dated 16. 9. 1992 passed in writ petition No. 33441 of 1992 and the communication was sent to the Director of Higher Education in this regard. One Dr. Ramhit Tripathi was assigned to the College but he did not join as the Principal. Thereafter on 31. 3. 1995, the name of dr. Hansraj Tripathi was recommended tor the post of Principal of the College. The said order dated 31. 3. 1995 was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10195 of 1995. The order of the Director of Higher Education dated 31. 3. 1995 appointing Dr. Hansraj Tripathi as the principal of the said College, was quashed on 27. 4. 1995. The case of the petitioner is that since the Director of Higher Education has directed the Commission not to make any selection on the post of Principal of the said College, the appointment of the respondent No. 6 cannot be made.
( 3 ) IN its counter affidavit, the respondent No. 5 has averred that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of the respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 6 has been given appointment and he has joined the post of Principal of the College on 3. 11. 1997 and that the respondent No. 6 is working as the Principal which facts have been deliberately withheld by the petitioner while filing the writ petition on 19. 11. 1997. It is further urged that the petitioner had earlier filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22704 of 1992, Ram Roop Shukla v. State of U. P. and ors. , for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the working and functioning of the petitioner of the said College and not to proceed with the process of selection for the post of Principal. In the said writ petition, an interim order in the following term was, passed on 1. 7. 1992 -.
"list this writ petition with writ petition No. 8106 of 1992 on the date fixed, Until a regularly selected Principal is appointed under the provisions of U. P. Higher Education Service commission Act, 1980, the petitioner shall not be restrained from continuing merely on the basis of ad hoc appointment, the Ordinance dated 21. 11. 1996 Annexure No. 6"
( 4 ) DURING the pendency of writ petition No. 8106 of 1992 and 22704 of 1992, the petitioner again filed another writ petition No. 33441 of 1992, Ram Roop Shukla v. State of U. P. and Ors. and again, an interim mandamus was sought commanding the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner and not to interfere in the working and functioning of the petitioner as the Principal of the said College. In writ petition No. 33441 of 1992, the petitioner purposefully did not disclose the fact that he had filed writ petition No. 22704 of 1992 which was still pending in the Court and succeeded in obtaining the following interim order:
"until further orders of this Court, the respondents are restrained from inte
