Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 506

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Sunil Kumar Jain - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondent
WRIT - A No. - 10333 of 2025 Alongwith Writ-A No. 5941 of 2026, Writ-A No. 5920 of 2026
Decided On : 29-05-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ritesh Upadhyay, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Nipun Singh, Prateek Rai

The recruitment process begins with the publication of the advertisement. Once a selection process is initiated under existing rules and has reached an advanced stage, it is protected against retroactive changes introduced by newly enacted legislation, provided the process is otherwise consistent with established legal requirements.

Headnote:(A) Education Law - Recruitment process - Commencement of selection - Determination of applicable rules - Recruitment process commences from the issuance of advertisement and ends with filling of notified vacancies - Government cannot unilaterally change the selection procedure rules once a process has been initiated with prior approval or advertisement - Provisions of a new act do not retroactively invalidate a selection process that has already been initiated and is protected under repeal and savings clauses of the newly enacted legislation. (Paras 22, 24, 38)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Locus Standi - Non-joinder of necessary parties - In a challenge to a recruitment process where appointments have been finalized and candidates have joined their posts, failure to array selected candidates as party respondents makes the petition liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of essential parties - Judicial review cannot be effectively exercised without the presence of affected parties whose vested interests are at stake. (Paras 7, 8, 11)

(C) Administrative Law - Duty of State Agencies - Requirement for consistent and transparent action - Authorities are cautioned against recalling orders or altering stands during ongoing litigation without appropriate judicial permission or assignment of valid reasons - Compliance with principles of natural justice and fair play is mandatory for administrative actions affecting public interest. (Paras 20, 21, 24)

Facts of the case:
The dispute involved the recruitment of teaching staff in a minority educational institution. The recruitment process was initiated following proper governmental permission and advertisements were issued. Subsequently, a new legislation came into force governing the selection process. The authorities initially sought to cancel the ongoing selection process but later reversed this decision. The petitioner challenged the legality of continuing the selection under the old framework instead of the new legislation, while selected candidates defended the validity of their appointment based on the advertisement date.

Table of Content
1. historical factual background of dispute regarding committee of management and selection proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. requirement of transparency and adherence to natural justice in administrative decision-making. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
3. court's power to set aside arbitrary administrative orders and direct reconsideration. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. recruitment process commences upon advertisement and remains protected by repeal and savings clauses. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
5. final adjudication dismissing non-maintainable petitions and vacating consequential injunctions. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Writ-A No. 10333 of 2025 was filed by one, Sunil Kumar Jain, claiming himself to be the Treasurer of time barred Committee of Management of Digamber Jain Mahavidyalaya, Baraut, Baghpat, a Minority Institution. The impugned order dated 21.04.2025 was passed by Principal Secretary, Higher Education, State of Uttar Pradesh in pursuance of a judgment passed in a bunch of three writ petitions, leading being, Sunil Kumar Jain vs. State of U.P. and others, 2025:AHC:9341 and in order to place relevant facts and details of earlier round of litigation, it would be appropriate to reproduce said judgment hereinafter in its entirety:

“1. All these writ petitions are arising out of a selection process initiated to fill vacant post of Assistant Professor in Digambar Jain College (Minority Educational Institution), Baraut, Baghpat.

2. Facts, as mentioned in one of the writ petition, are that there was a dispute with regard to Committee of Management of said Minority Institution and earlier attempt to fill up the vacant post does not reach to its logical end due to orders passed by Registrar of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut.

3. In above background an issue came up before this Court relating to inspection and Committee of Management of said Minority Institution filed Writ-A No. 20415 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.12.2023 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:

“11. The facts are not in dispute. The only bone of contention in between the parties is relatable to the fact as to whether the said exercise could have been resorted to by the State Government on the basis of the complaint behind the back of the writ petitioners without putting them to notice. The second issue would be whether the source of power of passing the said order would be Section 66-A or Section 40 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. Though learned counsel for the writ petitioners argues that Section 66-A does not provide for such a power to be resorted to in view of the judgments in the case of Rekha Yadav (supra) and Rakesh Ranjan Verma (supra), however, on the other hand the respondents have relied upon Section 40 of the 1973 Act. Section 40 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1970 provides a procedure, according to which inspection is to be done and further the association of the Committee of Management is also required. It is also apparent from Sub-section (4) of Section 40 that the State Government may communicate to the Management the result of the inspection or enquiry and may issue a direction as to the action to be taken and the Management shall comply thereof and further Sub-Section (5) provides that the State Government shall inform the Vice-Chancellor about any communication made by it to the Management under sub-section (4) and finally sub- section (6) of Section 40 provides that the State Government may, at any time, call for any information from the Management or Principal of an affiliated or associated college in connection with such inspection or inquiry. Thus in the opinion of the Court, a complete set of procedure has been provided modulating the manner according to which inspection is to be done and follow up action to be taken in that regard. S