Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3162
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SITTING AT LUCKNOW
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, JJ.
State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Higher Education, Lko. And Another – Appellants
Versus
Prof. Bimal Jaiswal And 2 Others – Respondent
Special Appeal No.89 of 2025
Decided on : 10-03-2025
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Higher Education Regulations
Act Referred
STATE UNIVERSITY ACT: S.12(12), S.31, S.66(a), S.8
UTTAR PRADESH STATE UNIVERSITIES ACT: S.8(1)
UTTAR PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICES RESERVATION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES, SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES ACT: S.3
UTTAR PRADESH KING GEORGES MEDICAL UNIVERSITY ACT: S.13, S.13(1)
Headnote
(B) Legal authority of state in university matters - The court underscored that the administration of university appointments falls under the jurisdiction of the state in accordance with the State Universities Act, allowing for inquiries into administrative and financial irregularities. (Paras 16, 22)
(C) Judicial Review - The judgment emphasizes adherence to procedural propriety in administrative inquiries and the necessity for inquiries to be conducted by individuals uninvolved with the university's operational functions. (Paras 20, 22)
For the Appellant : C.S.C.
For the Respondent: Nilaya Gupta,Anurag Kumar Singh
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to government inquiry constitution (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. writ court decision validity (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments on reservation eligibility (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. provisions regarding o.b.c. reservation (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. procedure for inquiries under state universities act (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. judicial review of inquiry processes (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. authority structure for inquiry committees (Para 21 , 22) |
| 8. irrelevance of cited judgments (Para 23 , 24) |
| 9. partial allowance of special appeal (Para 25) |
| 10. litigation costs assignment (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
1. Heard Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Nishant Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Shri Sandeep Dixit Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nilaya Gupta Advocate, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 and Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, the learned Counsel for the University of Lucknow.
2. By means of the instant Intra Court Appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RULES , 1952 the appellants - State of U.P. and Special Secretary, Department of Higher Education, have challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 27.01.2025 passed by a Single Judge Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.913 of 2025.
3. The aforesaid Writ petition was filed by Prof. Bimal Jaiswal – the respondent No.1 in this Special Appeal, challenging the validity of an Office Order dated 08.01.2025 issued by the State Government whereby the State Government has constituted a Committee for conducting an inquiry in relation to the allegations levelled in the complaint dated 03.12.2024 submitted by an Advocate against the appointment of the respondent No.1 made in the year 2005 on the post of Assistant Professor reserved for the candidates belonging to Other Backward Class (Non-Creamy Layer Category), irregularities committed by him in fixation of examination centers, in appointment of teachers, foul play/manipulation in awarding marks and exploitation of research scholars etc. The constitution of Committee is as follows: -
i Vice chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow - Chairman
ii Shri D.P. Shahi, Joint Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of U.P. - Member
iii Registrar, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut - Member
iv Regional Higher Education Officer, Lucknow - Member
The Committee has been directed to conduct an inquiry and submit a report to the Government within 15 days.
4. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Writ Court on the ground that the State Government does not have jurisdiction to pass such an order under provisions of the State Universities Act, 1973. The Writ Court referred to Sections 12 (12) and 66-A of the State Universities Act, 1973 and held that none of the aforesaid provisions empower the State Government for conducting an inquiry regarding allegations against appointment and working of a teacher of a State University.
5. The Writ Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the Office Order dated 08.01.2025 leaving it open for the competent authority to pass a fresh order, if required, in accordance with law under the relevant Rules.
6. Challenging validity of the aforesaid order, Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, the learned A.A.G. appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the respondent No.1 is the son of Prof. Siya Ram Jaiswal, who was working as a Professor in Lucknow University. The respondent No.1 got appointed to a post reserved for candidates belonging to Other Backward Class (O.B.C.) category. Being son of a Professor, the respondent No.1 was not entitled to claim the benefit of reservation for candidates belonging to O.B.C. category. He obtained appointment by concealing the fact that his father was a Professor in the University and thereby wrongly claimed the benefit of reservation.
7. The learned A.A.G. has submitted that Section 8 (1) of U.P. State Universities Act
