Allahabad High Court
Ganesh Tripathi And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 28 October, 2025
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:188516-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 7655 of 2019 A.F.R. Judgement Reserved on 16.10.2025 Judgement Delivered on 28.10.2025
Ganesh Tripathi And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
P.K. Upadhyay, Pradeep Kumar Pandey, Rakesh Kumar, Tarun Agrawal, Varun Kumar Chaubey
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Avneesh Tripathi, C.S.C., Neeraj Tripathi(Senior Adv.), Ved Byas Mishra
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition inter alia, with the prayer to quash the minutes of meeting No. E3051/GS dated 27.10.2017 held under the Chairmanship of respondent no 4/Chancellor, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi, Raj Bhawan, Lucknow regarding Advertisement No. 2 of 2016. Insofar as the other reliefs sought in the writ petition are concerned, the same is also relates to orders passed pursuant to the minutes of meeting dated 27.10.2017.
3. Initially, the present petition was filed by two petitioners viz. petitioner no. 1-Ganesh Tripathi, and petitioner no. 2-Dr. Rani Dwivedi and by order dated 29.05.2025 passed by this Court, the case of petitioner no. 1 was dismissed, the matter has been heard and decided only in respect of petitioner No.2.
4. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the respondent-University issued advertisements being Advertisement No. 1 of 2016 dated 24.05.2016 and Advertisement No. 2 of 2016 dated 16.09.2016 for recruitment to various posts in the University. Advertisement No. 1/2016 has been published regarding appointments of Professors and Associate Professors and Advertisement no. 2/2016 has been published regarding recruitment of Assistant Professors. Petitioner no. 2 applied under advertisement no. 2/2016 for the post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic Science) and she appeared before the interview panel on 25.10.2017. However, before the result could be declared, the Special Executive Officer in the office of the Chancellor of the University, wrote a letter to the Vice Chancellor on 27.10.2017 instructing him to proceed with selections after incorporating the amendments made by the University Grants Commission in (Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staffs in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulation, 2010 (UGC Regulation of 2010 hereinafter). The Vice Chancellor was also directed not to take any policy decision after 01.11.2017 in view of his impending retirement.
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions given by the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor halted the recruitments by the order dated 03.11.2017. After incorporating the amendments in its Statutes, the University carried out fresh advertisements for recruitment to the post in question. Hence the present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Chancellor and the consequential order of the Vice Chancellor dated 03.11.2017 as well as the fresh advertisement.
6. In support of his case, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner No.2 that orders passed by the Chancellor as well as Vice-Chancellor is contrary to the settled principles of law. It is argued that the impugned order passed by the Chancellor on 27.10.2017 is based on a selective interpretation of the Government Order dated 08.04.2017 which clearly provided for continuing with the advertisements already published. The Government Order dated 08.04.2017 issued under Sub Section (6) of Section 50 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 incorporated the Third and the Fourth Amendment in UGC Regulations of 2010 with prospective effect only. As such, the impugned order passed by the Chancellor halting/annulling advertisement no.2 of 2016 that had been published much before the issuance of the Government Order dated 08.04.2017 is patently arbitrary. It is further argued that in any case the amendments introduced in the UGC Regulations of 2010 did not alter the existing qualifications/eligibilities required for the post of Assistant Professor (Linguistics Science). In this view of the matter, the respondents committed manifest illegality in annulling the selection process with respect to the post of Assistant Professor (Linguistics Science). It is further argued that the meeting dated 27.10.2017 that led to the passing of the impugned order recited incorrect facts with regard to the pendency of the CMWP No. 49263 of 2017 for over two years. As a matter of fact, CMWP No. 49263 of 2017 stood dismissed on 25.10.2017 clearly holding that no illegality was committed by the University issuing the advertisements in question. Also, the advertisement was pending for a little over one year only on the date of passing of the impugned order, and not two years as incorrectly recorded therein.
7. On the other hand, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner No.2 being a prospective candidate does not have a vested right to compel the respondents to declare the result of the selection process. It is argued that being prospective candidate, the petitioner No.2 has no right to question the annulment of the selection process particularly when the opportunity was reserved for future participation. It is argued that since the order passed by the Chancellor has already been upheld by this Court vide its judgment dated 15.03.2019 passed in CMWP No. 3889 of 2019 (Dr. Amit Kumar Shukla Vs. the Chancellor, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya & Ors.) the same is binding upon the petitioner No.2 also.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Withe consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.
9. Insofar as the judgment dated 15.03.2019 passed in CMWP No. 3889 of 2019 (Dr. Amit Kumar Shukla Vs. the Chancellor, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya & Ors.) is concerned, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner No.2 that the facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable. Although, the order, which is under-challenge, is same yet the writ petition pertained to Advertisement No. 1 of 2016 for the appointment of Professors and Associate Professors and the amendments introduced in the UGC Regulations, 2010 introduced better qualifications for recruitment to the aforesaid two posts. In this view of the matter, this Court held that the decision of the Chancellor to halt the selection could not be said to be erroneous. Further the Court finds that it is true that no fetters can be placed upon the employer to withdraw the advertisement or to cancel it before the selection is completed, yet any such decision can still be questioned on the ground of lack of bona fides or arbitrariness. In this regard the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 is both instructive. It has held the field for over three decades.
10. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash (Supra) clearly held that the order cancelling the selection process cannot be arbitrary. It must be supported by cogent reasons. In other words, while the employer has a absolute right to withdraw the advertisement, yet a prospective candidate can assail the decision on the ground of arbitrariness or lack of bona fides. This is the limited right available to a prospective candidate while assailing withdrawal from selection process. The very fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognized a right in the prospective candidate to assail the withdrawal order itself renders the present writ petition maintainable. Paragraph 7 of the Shankarsan Dash (Supra) judgement reads as follows:- "It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana reported in (1986) 5 SCC 268, or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in (1985) 1 SCC 122."
11. Further the judgment and order dated 15.03.2019 does not take into account the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash (Supra) and the same also does not deal with the Government Order dated 08.04.2017 which protected all pending advertisements. The plea raised in the present petition had not been raised in the earlier petition which did not also relate to the advertisement in question. The impugned order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Chancellor was not affirmed on merits, rather on the issue of extent to which a prospective candidate can assail such an order.
12. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the judgment and order dated 15.03.2019 passed in Writ-A No. 3889 of 2019 (Dr. Amit Kumar Shukla Vs. the Chancellor. Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya & Ors.) is limited to its own peculiar set of facts and the same does not lay down any binding precedent upon this Court to hold that writ petition by a prospective candidate is not maintainable as the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash (Supra) clearly recognizes maintainability of such writ petition.
13. Insofar as the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Chancellor, and subsequential order dated 03.11.2017 passed by the Vice Chancellor halting the selection process is concerned, the petitioner has made a specific averment in paragraph no. 34 of the writ petition that the amendment did not made any change in the qualification of Assistant Professor and the aforesaid averment has not been specifically denied by the respondent-University in paragraph-26 of its counter affidavit. Therefore, it is admitted by both sides that the amendments introduced in UGC Regulations of 2010 did not bring any change in the existing qualifications to the post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic Science) that was published in advertisement no. 2 of 2016. In this view of the matter it is clear that the reason behind cancellation of the advertisement regarding recruitment of more qualified candidate in terms of the amended regulations would not ipso facto apply to the post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic Science).
14. The impugned passed by the Chancellor on 27.10.2017 ignores binding effect of the Government Order dated 08.04.2017. Interestingly, the respondent-University has purported to act only in pursuance of the Government Order dated 08.04.2017. Perusal of the Government Order dated 08.04.2017 clearly shows that the State Government was cognizant of the fact that the said Government Order could interfere with ongoing selection processes and all pending advertisements were protected under the aforesaid Government Order. While taken the decision by the State Government to apply the amendments to UGC Regulations of 2010 prospectively in future advertisements, the Universities were categorically instructed to continue with ongoing selection processes without being influenced in any manner with amendments incorporated vide Government Order dated 08.04.2017. In this view of the matter, the decision taken by the Chancellor of the University on 27.10.2017 is clearly in the breach of the aforesaid Government Order.
15. From perusal of the minutes of meeting dated 27.10.2017, it is clear that the decision making process is erroneous, therefore, the considerations that went into the passing of the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 were factually incorrect. The writ petition assailing the advertisement process had already been dismissed on 25.10.2017, as the meeting proceeded on an assumption that challenge to the selection process was still pending as on 27.10.2017. Furthermore, the committee wrongly noted that the selection process had remained inconclusive despite lapse of more than two years from the date of its publication. This was also factually incorrect that the advertisements were issued only in September 2016 and that a period of only 13 months had lapsed as on 27.10.2017.
16. The entire decision making process culminating in the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 is marred with factual inaccuracies and reflects a complete non-application of mind and the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 has been passed in complete breach of the Government Order dated 08.04.2017 which had protected ongoing advertisements. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 27.10.2017 and 03.11.2017 passed by the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor respectively are liable to be quashed.
17. Since this court by its order dated 20.02.2020 directed the respondent to keep reserved one post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic Science) for the petitioner no. 2, the subsequent advertisements issued for recruitment to the aforesaid post cannot come in the way of relief being granted to petitioner no.2. Nothing on record to indicate that any fresh appointment has been made to the post in question pursuant to subsequent advertisements, nor could any such appointment be made in view of the interim order dated 20.02.2020.
18. The order dated 29.05.2025 is also significant for grant of relief. The result of the interview was placed before this Court in a sealed cover for its perusal. After scanning the results, the earlier bench recorded that the present petition survived with respect to petitioner no.2 only. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the result was shown to both the counsel, which reflected that the petitioner no.2 was successful in the interview. Shri Shesh Kumar, learned counsel for the University did not dispute this fact in response to a pointed query made by this Court. The petitioner no.2 thus, stood selected pursuant to the interview and would have been appointed but for the impugned orders.
19. The writ petition is allowed only in respect of petitioner No.2. The impugned order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Chancellor, and the consequential order dated 03.11.2017 passed by the Vice-Chancellor is quashed. The impugned Minutes of Meeting dated 27.10.2017 is also quashed. Subsequent advertisements shall stand modified to this extent. The Vice-Chancellor of the University is directed to grant appointment to the petitioner no.2 on the post of Assistant Professor (Linguistic Science) after completing all procedural formalities within 30 days from today.
20. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Vice-Chancellor of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi as well as Registrar Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi through C.J.M. Varanasi within 48 hours.
21. No order as to costs.
(Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.) October 28, 2025 saqlain