High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Aditendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Petitioners before this Court are taking benefit of a detailed interim order passed on 8.8.2016 in WRIT- A No.-34611 of 2016 which is reproduced hereinafter: "Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.1. 2 Issue notice to the respondent nos.2 and 3 returnable by 17th October, 2016. Steps to serve the respondent nos.2 and 3 shall be taken within one week. List this petition on 17th October, 2016. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Mangalayatan University (respondent no.2) has been constituted under U.P. Act No.32 of 2006, which is known as Mangalayatan University Uttar Pradesh Act, 2006. It has been submitted that being a statutory body and performing public functions, the University would be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It has been submitted that petitioner nos.1, 5 and 6 were appointed as Junior General Duty Worker-II; petitioner nos.2, 9 and 10 were appointed as Junior General Duty Worker-III: petitioner no.12 was appointed as Junior General Duty Worker-l; petitioner no.3 was appointed as Store Incharge; petitioner no.4 was appointed as Dealing Assistant; petitioner nos.7 and 8 were appointed as Junior Attendant-III; and the petitioner no.11 was appointed as Graphics Instructor in the University. It has been submitted that the initial appointment of the aforesaid petitioners had been made much earlier, but they were regularized by separate appointment letters issued in the year 2016. It has been submitted that under the terms and conditions of the appointment, the appointment is to be governed by the University's Rules and Regulations as amended from time to time. It has been submitted that under Section 27 of the Mangalayatan University Act, 2006, the Executive Council with the approval of the Chancellor is empowered to make statutes in respect of the conditions of service of employees including provisions for their retirement benefits, insurance, provident fund, and the manner of termination of their servicae as well as disciplinary action. It has been submitted that to the best of the knowledge of the petitioners no such Statutes have been framed and till framing of such Statutes, the University being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India has to 3 act in a manner which is not in violation of provisions of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted that since 1st July, 2016, without passing any written order, the Registrar of the University has stopped the petitioners from discharging their duties and, therefore, the action of the University in depriving the petitioners of their livelihood is arbitrary. It has accordingly been submitted that a direction be issued to the University not to interfere in the working of the petitioners on their respective posts in the University and to pay salary to the petitioners regularly, month to month. Considering the fact that the University is a Statutory body and the petitioners were regularly appointed as it appears from appointment letters appended as Annexure Nos 2-A to 2-G, this Court considers it appropriate to issue an ad-interim mandamus commanding the respondent nos.2 and 3 to pay salary to the petitioners and allow them to work or to show cause by filing counter affidavit by 17th October, 2016."

3. On the basis of aforesaid interim order, similar relief has been granted to other petitioners also in the connected cases.

4. University has filed a counter affidavit and relevant paragraphs being 4,6,12 and 13 are reproduced hereinafter: "4. That the matter pertains to the Ministerial employees of the University whose services came to an end and they claimed in this petition that they are regular and permanent employees of the University they are entitled to continue. and as such they are entitled to continue.

6. That there is a society namely Acharya Kundkund Educational Society, Aligarh which is a Society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860. The said Society is the sponsoring body of the University namely Mangalayatan Univestiy, which has been incorporated by Mangalayatan University Act, 2006.

12. That statute 10 provides that the terms and conditions of services of each category of employees shall be governed by the provision made in the regulations. 13 That statute 20 specifically provides that regulations shall be made with the approval of the Executive Council which shall be duly notified." 4

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers paragraphs 6 and 7 of the rejoinder affidavit which are reproduced hereinafter: " 6. That the contents of paras 8 to 13 of the counter affidavit pertain to statutory provision and the correct position can be ascertained from such provisions itself. It is, however, necessary to state that in para 10 of the counter affidavit an averment has been made that First Statutes have been frmed under section 27(2) of the 2006 Act. But neither any such statute has been enclosed to the counter affidavit nor the date from which it has been enforced has been mentioned.

7. That the contents of para 14 of the counter affidavit pertain to matter of record. It is, however, necessary to state that the decision taken in the meeting dated 5.12.08 has not been publicized in any known manner nor the rules approved by such resolution published in the Gazette or in any other known manner."

6. I have considered the above submissions and Court is of the opinion that since the petitioners have enjoyed the fruits of interim order as referred above for the last 8 years, therefore, to interfere with the said interim order would not be justifiable. However, by making the interim order absolute, these writ petitions are disposed of with an opportunity to the respondents University that in case any action is to be taken against the petitioners, same will be taken only after granting opportunity of hearing to them and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 SB SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Aditendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Petitioners before this Court are taking benefit of a detailed interim order passed on 8.8.2016 in WRIT- A No.-34611 of 2016 which is reproduced hereinafter: "Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.1. 2 Issue notice to the respondent nos.2 and 3 returnable by 17th October, 2016. Steps to serve the respondent nos.2 and 3 shall be taken within one week. List this petition on 17th October, 2016. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Mangalayatan University (respondent no.2) has been constituted under U.P. Act No.32 of 2006, which is known as Mangalayatan University Uttar Pradesh Act, 2006. It has been submitted that being a statutory body and performing public functions, the University would be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It has been submitted that petitioner nos.1, 5 and 6 were appointed as Junior General Duty Worker-II; petitioner nos.2, 9 and 10 were appointed as Junior General Duty Worker-III: petitioner no.12 was appointed as Junior General Duty Worker-l; petitioner no.3 was appointed as Store Incharge; petitioner no.4 was appointed as Dealing Assistant; petitioner nos.7 and 8 were appointed as Junior Attendant-III; and the petitioner no.11 was appointed as Graphics Instructor in the University. It has been submitted that the initial appointment of the aforesaid petitioners had been made much earlier, but they were regularized by separate appointment letters issued in the year 2016. It has been submitted that under the terms and conditions of the appointment, the appointment is to be governed by the University's Rules and Regulations as amended from time to time. It has been submitted that under Section 27 of the Mangalayatan University Act, 2006, the Executive Council with the approval of the Chancellor is empowered to make statutes in respect of the conditions of service of employees including provisions for their retirement benefits, insurance, provident fund, and the manner of termination of their servicae as well as disciplinary action. It has been submitted that to the best of the knowledge of the petitioners no such Statutes have been framed and till framing of such Statutes, the University being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India has to 3 act in a manner which is not in violation of provisions of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted that since 1st July, 2016, without passing any written order, the Registrar of the University has stopped the petitioners from discharging their duties and, therefore, the action of the University in depriving the petitioners of their livelihood is arbitrary. It has accordingly been submitted that a direction be issued to the University not to interfere in the working of the petitioners on their respective posts in the University and to pay salary to the petitioners regularly, month to month. Considering the fact that the University is a Statutory body and the petitioners were regularly appointed as it appears from appointment letters appended as Annexure Nos 2-A to 2-G, this Court considers it appropriate to issue an ad-interim mandamus commanding the respondent nos.2 and 3 to pay salary to the petitioners and allow them to work or to show cause by filing counter affidavit by 17th October, 2016."

3. On the basis of aforesaid interim order, similar relief has been granted to other petitioners also in the connected cases.

4. University has filed a counter affidavit and relevant paragraphs being 4,6,12 and 13 are reproduced hereinafter: "4. That the matter pertains to the Ministerial employees of the University whose services came to an end and they claimed in this petition that they are regular and permanent employees of the University they are entitled to continue. and as such they are entitled to continue.

6. That there is a society namely Acharya Kundkund Educational Society, Aligarh which is a Society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860. The said Society is the sponsoring body of the University namely Mangalayatan Univestiy, which has been incorporated by Mangalayatan University Act, 2006.

12. That statute 10 provides that the terms and conditions of services of each category of employees shall be governed by the provision made in the regulations. 13 That statute 20 specifically provides that regulations shall be made with the approval of the Executive Council which shall be duly notified." 4

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers paragraphs 6 and 7 of the rejoinder affidavit which are reproduced hereinafter: " 6. That the contents of paras 8 to 13 of the counter affidavit pertain to statutory provision and the correct position can be ascertained from such provisions itself. It is, however, necessary to state that in para 10 of the counter affidavit an averment has been made that First Statutes have been frmed under section 27(2) of the 2006 Act. But neither any such statute has been enclosed to the counter affidavit nor the date from which it has been enforced has been mentioned.

7. That the contents of para 14 of the counter affidavit pertain to matter of record. It is, however, necessary to state that the decision taken in the meeting dated 5.12.08 has not been publicized in any known manner nor the rules approved by such resolution published in the Gazette or in any other known manner."

6. I have considered the above submissions and Court is of the opinion that since the petitioners have enjoyed the fruits of interim order as referred above for the last 8 years, therefore, to interfere with the said interim order would not be justifiable. However, by making the interim order absolute, these writ petitions are disposed of with an opportunity to the respondents University that in case any action is to be taken against the petitioners, same will be taken only after granting opportunity of hearing to them and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 SB SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad