IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
C/M S.N. Sen Balika Vidyalaya and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 23497 of 2022
Decided On : 18-08-2022
U.P. State Universities Act - Appointment of Authorised Controller - Section 58 - Summary of Acts and Sections: U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, Sections 15, U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, Sections 57, 58
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order appointing an Authorised Controller under Section 58 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, after the appointment of the respondent No. 5 as Principal of the institution. The petitioners contended procedural impropriety and violation of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the State Government complied with the requirements of Section 58 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 in appointing the Authorised Controller. However, the Court set aside the orders appointing the Authorised Controller and the subsequent delegation of duties due to the respondent No. 5 already assuming the role of Principal.
Issues: Procedural impropriety, violation of natural justice, appointment of Authorised Controller under Section 58 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973
Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with statutory requirements for appointment of Authorised Controller, extinguishment of basis for Authorised Controller's appointment due to respondent No. 5 assuming the role of Principal, principle of 'Delegatus non potest delegare'
Final Decision: The orders appointing the Authorised Controller and the subsequent delegation of duties are set aside. The writ petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sarvesh Kumar, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No. 5 and the learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 29.7.2022 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) passed by the State Government, Higher Education Department, whereby exercising powers under Section 58 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 the petitioners-Committee of Management has been superceded and the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar has been appointed as the Authorised Controller for a period of next one year or till further orders whichever occurs earlier. A challenge to the consequential order dated 30.7.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar/Authorised Controller/respondent No. 3 whereby he has proceeded to delegate his authority to discharge his duties as Authorised Controller in favour of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Kanpur Nagar has also been laid.
3. The facts shorn of unnecessary details giving rise to the present proceedings are that the petitioner-Committee of Management through its Manager, petitioner No. 2, has been managing the affairs of a Degree College, established in the year 1953 in the name and style of “S.N. Sen Balika Vidyalaya Post Graduate College at District Kanpur Nagar” affiliated with Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University. The respondent No. 5, Dr. Suman, was recommended vide order dated 22.10.2021 of the Director of Education (Higher) for appointment as Principal which was lying vacant in the institution and was required to be filled up by way of regular appointment. On the strength of the recommendation dated 22.10.2021 the Regional Higher Education Officer wrote to the petitioner Committee of Management on 2.11.2021 to ensure the joining of the respondent No. 5. A formal request was also made by the respondent No. 5 by way of communication dated 8.11.2021. The petitioner Committee of Management began processing the appointment of the respondent No. 5 and prior to issuance of the appointment letter sought to verify the testimonials of the respondent No. 5 for Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and Other universities from where the respondent No. 5 had obtained her qualifications. During the course of such verification by the petitioners, the Regional Higher Education Officer as also the Director of Higher Education wrote to the petitioner Committee of Management vide letters dated 27.11.2021 and 1.12.2021, respectively, to ensure the joining of the respondent No. 5. During the course of the verification of the testimonials of the respondent No. 5, it was revealed that not a single student had done his PhD under the guidance of the respondent No. 5. As per the qualification prescribed under the UGC Regulations an incumbent who seeks appointment on the post of Principal in a Post Graduate College has to have essential qualification of research guidance experience. The petitioners required the respondent No. 5 to clarify her position in that regard. When no clarification was received from the respondent No. 5, the petitioners vide letter dated 12.3.2022 requested the respondent Authorities to clarify whether the respondent No. 5 stood qualified to be appointed as Principal of the Institution. Instead of clarifying the position, the State Government exercising powers under Section 57 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, issued notices dated 20.5.2022 to it purporting to be under Section 57(ii) of the Act, 1973. The notice was duly replied by the petitioner by submitting its reply dated 6.6.2022. The State Government without considering the reply of the petitioner proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 29.7.2022 and consequent thereto the Authorised Controller proceeded to pass the order dated 30.7.2022.
4. Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearin
Compliance with statutory requirements for appointment of Authorised Controller and the principle of 'Delegatus non potest delegare'
The court upheld the validity of the petitioner's appointment as Principal, asserting no individual can claim dual permanent positions in educational administration.
Director of Secondary Education holds quasi-judicial power to probe election validity and approvals in aided institutions under School Education Act; jurisdiction distinct from Societies Act; prima f....
The court ruled that the authority to assign the Principal role resides with the Regional Additional Director, and orders issued without following proper protocols are invalid.
The court upheld the State's invocation of emergency provisions under Section 52 of the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, finding it justified due to maladministration, and ruled that pri....
The State Government is authorized to conduct inquiries into university appointments under the State Universities Act, revealing the importance of procedural propriety and independence from universit....
Exclusion of natural justice under Section 52(1) of the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 justified the actions of the State Government in issuing notifications and conducting the enquiry.
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.