Back
PRAKASH SINGH
Ajay Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh, J.-Vakalatnama filed by Shri Parmatma Pd. Singh, Advocate on behalf of opposite party No. 5, is taken on record.
2. Heard Ms. Shweta Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel for State, Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party No. 4 and Sri Parmatma Pd. Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No. 5.
3. Notices to opposite party No. 4 is hereby dispensed with.
4. At the very out-set, Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University has raised preliminary objection that the order dated 11th October 2023 passed by the Vice Chancellor is revisable under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Act, 1973'). He added that the Vice Chancellor has taken decision vide order dated 11th October 2023 and refuted the claim of the petitioner while observing that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Associate Professor on 14th May 2022, and therefore, he is not entitled to be posted on rotation basis, as the same can be
The court reaffirmed that a writ petition should not be entertained when an effective alternative remedy exists, except in exceptional circumstances.
Alternative remedies do not bar the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226, especially in cases involving fundamental rights or jurisdictional issues.
Point of Law : Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances are made out.
Dismissal of an employee without a fair inquiry violates natural justice principles and statutory provisions, making the writ petition maintainable despite alternative remedies.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Section 17(16) and (17) of the act of 1998 and the determination of the maintainability of the petitioner's....
The court affirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy exists, particularly in private employment disputes.
The amendments to State university Acts, removing Vice-Chancellor appointment power from the Chancellor to the Government, were found unconstitutional for conflicting with UGC Regulations, which have....
Reappointment of Vice Chancellor without fresh selection is valid unless specified; initial appointment void for UGC non-compliance.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
