IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the ban on recruitment process is not absolute, and once lifted, should be taken to have been lifted absolutely, with no justification for any distinction based on the date specified.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri K.R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of this petition, petitioner has questioned the order passed by the Director of Higher Education, Prayagraj dated 5th November, 2018, whereby, against one post of Junior Clerk, the selection of Krishna Yadav has been approved, whereas the selection of Arvind Kumar Singh on the another post of Junior Clerk and Sri Vineet Kumar Yadav on the post of Lab Assistant has been disapproved.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the reasons assigned in the order is unsustainable as the particular ban imposed in the year 2012 on the appointments against class III and class IV positions of such institutions came to be lifted on 11th July, 2013.

4. It is submitted that merely because the ban has come to be lifted on 11th July, 2013, does not mean that the post which had fallen vacant after 11th July, 2013, the managements were denuded of their power to make selections and appointments.

5. In support of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management of Mahatma Gandhi Shanti Smarak Degree College, Ghazipur and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others in Writ (A) No. 26271 of 2018 decided on 9th January, 2019. He submits that both the Government orders dated 11th July, 2013 and 15th March, 2012 were taken into consideration and the Court ultimately came to conclude that such approach of the authorities in taking as if there was still a ban in respect of the vacancy falling after 11th July, 2013 was incorrect. The Court in that case has set aside the order and Director was directed to pass order afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment.

6. He further submits that it is after the lifting of the ban on 11th July, 2013 a conscious decision was taken by the authority in granting permission to the Committee of Management on 7th January, 2016 to proceed ahead with the selection of candidates upon the two posts of Junior Clerk and one post of Lab Assistant and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Committee of Management was not having the power or authority to make selection and appointment.

7. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel though sought to argue in support of the decision impugned in this case but could not dispute that a conscious decision had been taken to accord permission to fill up vacancy. He submits that in order to clear confusion on facts Director may be directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the judgment passed by this Court.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the record, what I find is that the permission to make selection upon the post in question (two posts of Junior Clerk and one post of Lab Assistant) was consciously taken by Joint Director of Higher Education for Director of Higher Education on 7th January, 2016 much after the ban was lifted. The authority was fully conscious about one post of Junior Clerk and one post of Lab Assistant that had fallen vacant after the ban got lifted, nonetheless the Director proceeded to disapprove the selection of one post of Junior Clerk and one post of Lab Assistant on the ground of ban.

9. I have gone through the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court and I find that in paragraph 5 of the judgment this very legal plea specifically taken by learned Standing Counsel was considered. Paragraph 5 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“5. Learned Standing Counsel has obtain instructions, according to which the State Government vide Government Order dated 11.7.2013 has lifted the ban only in respect of posts which had fallen vacant till 11.7.2013, and that the vacancy, in the present case, since has arisen after 11.7.2013, therefore, ban imposed earlier vide order dated 15.3.2012 would continue to remain invoked.”

10. Now after r