O R D E R

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 01st February, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a writ petition preferred by him against the order dated 03rd January, 2011 issued by the Director of Higher Education, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh whereby the placement order dated 23rd November, 2010 issued by the out-going Director of Education (Higher Education) in favour of the appellant appointing him to the post of Lecturer in “Agriculture Chemistry” at Gochar Mahavidyalaya, Rampur Maniharan, Saharanpur1 was cancelled. The grounds taken in the impugned letter dated 03rd January, 2011 for cancelling the appointment of the appellant was that the same was against the rules. An additional ground mentioned in the impugned letter stating that the placement order was fraudulent, was however, turned down by the Division Bench.

2. The facts as culled out from the records reveals that the respondent 1 For short ‘the Mahavidyala’

No.2, Director of Higher Education, Uttar Pradesh had issued Advertisement No.41 on 07th February, 2007 for making appointments to the post of teachers/lecturer in various subject streams including 5 vacancies (2 in the general category, 2 OBC and 1 SC category) in “Agriculture Chemistry”. The appellant had applied in response to the aforesaid advertisement and participated in the process. The selection result was declared by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commission2 on 01st May, 2009 declaring the list of the selected candidates for the 5 advertised posts. As per the said result, all the five posts were duly filled up. A waiting list was also prepared by the Commission comprising of three candidates wherein the name of the appellant featured at Serial No.1 against general category.

3. Admittedly, all the five posts subject matter of the Advertisement No.41 were duly filled up and as a consequence thereof, the waiting list would have automatically lapsed. However, strangely enough, the appellant claimed to have received an appointment letter dated 23rd November, 2010, issued by the Director of Education (H.E.), Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh to the Secretary of the Respondent No.3 – Mahavidyalaya recommending the appointment of the appellant against the post that had fallen vacant in the respondent No.3 as a consequence of a single transfer of one Dr. Pramod Kumar. It is not in dispute that the post in question had fallen vacant on the transfer of Dr. Pramod Kumar.

2 For short ‘the Commission’

Perusal of letter dated 28th June, 2007 issued by the Principal Secretary, U.P. Government to the respondent No.2 shows that Dr. Pramod Kumar who was working on the post of Reader, “Agriculture Chemistry” in the respondent No.3- Mahavidyalaya was transferred to Ch. Shivnath Singh Shandilaya (P.G.

College), Machhara, Meerut, U.P.

4. The High Court having examined the facts of the case and on perusing the stand taken by the respondent noticed that placement of the appellant had been made on an unadvertised vacancy and the post that had fallen vacant due to the single transfer of Dr. Pramod Kumar was much after issuance of the advertisement and therefore, the said post could not have been made a subject matter of consideration pursuant to the advertisement. The order dated 23rd November, 2010 issued by the then Director of Higher Education was reviewed and the impugned order came to be passed holding inter alia that the placement of the appellant was not in accordance with law.

5. It is apparent from a perusal of the records that the post in question was never advertised and was not a part of Advertisement No.41 and therefore, there was no scope of the appellant having been appointed to the subject post. In any case, the said post that had fallen vacant on the transfer of Dr. Pramod Kumar was that of a Reader whereas the appellant had participated in the selection process in response to the advertisement issued for appointment of teacher/lecturer in the stream of “Agriculture Chemistry”.

6. We find no reason to take a different view than one expressed by the High Court in the instant case. This is a case where the appellant was appointed on a post which was neither requisitioned, nor was it advertised and therefore, no placement order could have been issued in his favour. Quite clearly, the appellant’s appointment was void ab initio and remained so till the impugned order came to be passed. Therefore, we decline to interfere with the impugned order which is upheld and the present appeal is accordingly, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own expenses.

……………………….......................J.

(HIMA KOHLI)

……………………….......................J.

(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)

NEW DELHI 10th JANUARY, 2024 ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.11 SECTION III-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3433/2012 MUKESH KUMAR GAUR Appellant(s)

VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 10-01-2024 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH For Appellant(s) Mr. R.K.Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Kuldip Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Tomar, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Tyagi, Adv.

Mr. Mayur Raj, Adv.

Mr. Parvesh Tyagi, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the court made the following

O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.

(Geeta Ahuja) (Nand Kishor)

Assistant Registrar-cum-PS Court Master (NSH)

(Signed order is placed on the file)