Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Allahabad High Court

Kuvendra Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 4 December, 2019

Author: Sudhir Agarwal

Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Kaushal Jayendra Thaker





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
Court No.34
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11976 of 2001
 
Petitioner :- Kuvendra Pal Singh
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.B. Saran, Bidhan Chandra Rai 
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A. K. Misra, Aswani Kumar Mishra, Sarita Dubey
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
 

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

In Re : Civil Misc. Review Application No.271325 of 2017

1. Heard Sri Prashant Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for review-applicant.

2. This review application has been filed by State of U.P. for respondents-1 and 2 seeking review of our judgment dated 23.08.2016.

3. We find that another review application was also filed by present review applicants i.e. C. M. Review Application No.271330 of 2017 and same was got dismissed as withdrawn on 18.05.2018 and order passed on said review application reads as under :

"1. Writ petition was decided on merits vide judgment dated 23.08.2016. There-against State preferred Special Leave to Appeal bearing No.(CC) 6810 of 2017 in Supreme Court but the same was subsequently got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 1.5.2017 with permission to approach Court by means of review application. Thereafter, this application was filed in Court on 20th September, 2017. Subsequently, an application by review applicant, i.e., State of U.P., has been filed on 1.12.2017 requesting for dismissal of review application as withdrawn.
2. Said withdrawal application has been allowed vide order of date passed on Withdrawal Application No.398661 of 2017.
3. Accordingly, review application is dismissed as withdrawn. For order, see order of date passed on withdrawal application."

4. On the same grounds this review application has also been filed.

5. We repeatedly asked learned Standing Counsel as to what is the ground for reviewing our judgement dated 23.08.2016, he stated that since Director has not granted approval to the selection, the very appointment of petitioner was illegal.

6. However, this aspect has been considered in our judgment and we have dealt with this issue from paras 7 to 14 of judgment. The selection and appointment in the case in hand is governed by provisions of Uttar Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1962"). Section 22-F(1) of Act, 1962 contemplates approval before appointment by Director. Sub-section (3) further provides that if Director fails to convey his approval within two weeks of the receipt of relevant records, approval shall be deemed to have been accorded.

7. In the present case, Director proceeded on assumption that unless he grants approval, appointment cannot be made and ignored Sub-section (3) of Section 22 of Act, 1962, which had not been appreciated by this Court and it has been held that if the Director fails to convey his decision within two weeks of receipt of documents, the Statute permits deemed approval and thereafter Management gets power of appointment and in the present case, appointment accordingly has been made. Thus, it cannot be said that appointment of petitioner was illegal.

8. No other point has been argued before us.

9. Application is dismissed accordingly.

Order Date : 04.12.2019 Manish Himwan Court No.34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11976 of 2001 Petitioner :- Kuvendra Pal Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunita Agrawal,A.B.Saran,Bidhan Chandra Rai,Krishna Murari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Misra,Aswani Kumar Mishra,Sarita Dubey Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

In Re : Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.271324 of 2017

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing C. M. Review Application No.271325 of 2017, which has been filed for review of our judgment dated 23.08.2016.

2. Heard.

3. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing aforesaid application is condoned.

4. Application, accordingly, stands allowed.

Order Date : 04.12.2019 Manish Himwan