Back
RAJAN ROY
C/M Manager Jai Narain Degree College Lko – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's reasoning and findings on appeal. (Para 1 , 11) |
| 2. petitioner's employment history and complications. (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. substantive appointment analysis and timing. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. legal requirements under section 31(3)(b). (Para 10) |
| 5. final decision to quash impugned orders. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
Rajan Roy, J.
Heard Shri Shivaji Shukla, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri Satrohan Lal, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the University.
2. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department dated 20.07.2022 in compliance of the order of this Court dated 23.05.2022 wherein she has stated that the impugned orders are not covered by the Government Order dated 04.12.2010 keeping in abeyance the orders passed by Dr. Mian Jaan, the then Director, Higher Education and that the impugned orders are correct and legal and are unaffected by the disciplinary proceedings against Shri Mian Jaan and the Government Order dated 04.12.2010.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner no. 2 was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Chemistry in Jai Narai
Continuous and long service can justify treating an appointment as substantively appointed, and impugned orders based on incorrect facts can be quashed.
Appointments against sanctioned posts do not require prior approval from the State Government, allowing for post facto validation and regularization of service.
The court affirmed that administrative actions must be taken within a reasonable time frame, and the cancellation of a long-standing appointment based on flawed reasoning is unjustified.
The judgment establishes that allegations of fraud and forgery must be supported by evidence, and impugned orders lacking such evidence are bad for want of authority of law.
Service Law - Appointment order issued by a person not authorized to do the same would be nullity and not an irregularity.
Point of Law : Probation appointment - Appointment of the petitioner was not made on the said post of lecturer after following the requisite procedure under Statute 417 framed by the University.
Point of law; It is clearly clarified in this judgment also in line with the earlier judgments also that unless and until the original appointment is a “regular recruitment” in accordance with “the r....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher was made against a substantive vacancy, entitling the petitioner to regularization u....
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
