Allahabad High Court
Anjana Sharma vs State Of U.P.Through Prin.Secy.Social ... on 21 September, 2023
Author: Irshad Ali
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:61072 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2207 of 2002 Petitioner :- Anjana Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prin.Secy.Social Welfare And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Alka Verma,Pali Anurag,S.K Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,S.K Yadav,Somkartik Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard Ms. Radhika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pankaj Patel, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and Shri Som Kartik, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
(i) A writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the orders dated 23.3.2002 and 9.4.2002 passed by opposite party nos.2 and 5 as contained in Annexure Nos.17 and 21
(ii) A writ, direction or order in the nature of Mandamus be issued commanding the opposite party no.2 to approve the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Principal of the institution and further command the opposite party no.5 not to give effect to the order of termination and petitioner is treated to be in service throughout.
(iii) A writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the opposite parties to make the payment of salary to the petitioner w.e.f. February, 2001 to March, 2002 and further pay the same regularly month to month.
(iv) Any other suitable writ, direction or order be also issued as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
(v) cost of the petitioner be also awarded to the petitioner.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that Mahila shilip Shikshalaya, Khyaliganj, Lucknow (opposite party no.5) is a technical institution under the grant-in-aid and is run and managed by the society registered under the Societies Registration Act.The erstwhile Principal of the institution attained the age of superannuation and stood retired on 30.6.2000. The resolution adopted by the committee of management to fill up the vacant post of Principal on 22.6.2000. On 6.8.2000, advertisement published in daily newspaper inviting applications for eligible candidates for being considered for appointment to the said post.
Correction/ corrigendum of earlier advertisement published in 'Dainik Lucknow Mail' on 9.8.2000. The Selection Committee issued panel of three candidates showing the petitioner at serial no.1 to opposite party no.2. On 8.1.2001, opposite party no.3 addressed a letter to opposite party no.5 with copy to opposite party no.4 raising certain queries.
The matter was inquired into and opposite party no.4 submitted reply to opposite party no.2. The petitioner issued with an appointment letter on 25.1.2001. In pursuance to the appointment letter, the petitioner joined on 1.2.2001 and since then, he is continuously working regularly. However, the salary was not paid to him.
The petitioner as well as opposite party no.5 represented the matter to opposite party nos.2 and 4 regarding payment of salary and approval of her appointment. The U.P. Government also wrote to opposite party no.2 with regard to the same. On 23..3.2002, the opposite party no.2 rejected the proposal sent by opposite party no.5 for approval of the petitioner's appointment as Principal. The opposite party no.5 consequently thereof passed the order terminating the service of the petitioner.
4. Ms. Radhika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the impugned order dated 23.3.2002, the opposite party has not taken notice of the corrigendum issued by the committee of management of 9.8.2000 and proceeded to pass the impugned orders, therefore, the impugned orders vitiated in law and are liable to be quashed by this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once the corrigendum would have been taken into consideration, then there was no necessity to pass the order impugned dated 23.3.2002 and proceeded to grant approval through the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Principal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the committee of management has also not applied his mind nor proceeded to make further transmission of the documents in regard to said corrigendum to opposite party no.2 with the request to withdraw the order dated 23.3.2002 and has proceeded to pass the order on 9.11.2002 terminating the services of the petitioner. The order of termination does not record reason nor has application of mind in passing the impugned order.
7. While entertaining the writ petition, the Court was pleased to pass the order on 17.4.2002 which is being quoted below:
"Admit.
Notice on behalf of the opposite parties no.1 to 4 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel, who prays for and is granted six weeks' time to file counter affidavit.
Issue notice to opposite party no.5.
Sri A.N. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the bar of maximum age was removed by the notification which was published in the daily newspaper 'Dainik Lucknow Mail' dated 8.8.2000.
In view of the aforesaid facts, the operation and enforcement of the impugned orders dated 23.3.2002 and 9.4.2002 contained in Annexres No.17 and 21 respectively shall remain stayed.
The opposite parties shall pay salary to the petitioner."
8. On bare perusal of the above-extracted order, it is evident that the impugned orders were stayed by the Court and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner has been continuously discharging his duties on the post of Principal and has been paid salary.
9. It is relevant to note that the petitioner is going to retire on 28.10.2023. It is also relevant to note that vide Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit, the Manager of the Institution has appreciated the work and conduct of the petitioner.
10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the impugned orders does not suffer from infirmity or illegality and is just and valid order. Respondent no.2 looking into the contents of the advertisement has proceeded to pass the impugned order that the petitioner does not come under the ambit of age invited under the advertisement.
11. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
12. On perusal of the advertisement it is evident that the initially, the age required under the advertisement was 32 years and vide corrigendum issued on 9.8.2000 relaxation was given in the maximum age limit which has not been taken care while passing the impugned orders dated 23.3.2002 and 9.4.2002, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law and are liable to be quashed. In case opposite party no.2 would have taken care of corrigendum letter dated 9.8.2000, there was no occasion to pass the impugned order.
Moreover, the petitioner after grant of interim order, has been continuously discharging her duties and has been paid salary in pursuance thereof.
13. In view of the reasons recorded above, this writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Orders dated 23.3.2002 and 9.4.2002 are hereby quashed.
14. However, it is provided that the petitioner shall continue to discharge her duties on the post of Principal of the Institution and shall be paid salary.
Order Date :- 21.9.2023 GK Sinha