High Court · 2025

3. Shri Utsav Mishra, learned counsel after arguing at some length prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the application for intervention with liberty to pursue other remedy that may be available to him.

4. Accordingly, the application is rejected with liberty as prayed aforesaid.

5. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally.

6. This writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- "(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Office Order No.VIP60/Sattar-1-2024 dated 08.01.2025 issued by the Special Secretary, Department of Higher Education Section-I, Government of U.P., Lucknow the respondent No.2, as contained in Annexure No.1, after summoning the same from the respondent no.1 and 2. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, particularly the respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to give effect to, and not to implement or take any further action pursuant to the Office Order No.VIP60/Sattar-1-2024 dated 08.01.2025 issued by the Special Secretary, Department of Higher Education Section-I, Government of U.P., Lucknow - respondent No.2, as contained in Annexure No.1, pending final decision of the writ petition. (iii)... (iv).... "

7. By means of the order dated 08.01.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, the State Government has constituted a committee of four members to enquire into the appointment of the petitioner. Said committee has been required to submit a report to the State Government within a period of 15 days.

8. The order impugned has been challenged on the ground that the State Government does not have any power to issue a direction as has been done in the instant case. In this regard, reliance has been placed on Section 66-A of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1973') to contend that Section 66-A of the Act, 1973 would only pertain to the directions to be issued by the State Government to a University on policy matters inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, 1973.

9. Placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt Rekha Yadav vs State of U.P. & Ors : [2012(30) LCD 1017], the argument is that the Division Bench of this Court has held that the State Government has no power either to make enquiry or to issue any direction which varies the terms and conditions of the appointment of the petitioner and that State Government has no authority to intervene in the matter and issue any such order.

10. The contention is that once the Act, 1973 itself does not empower the State Government to issue the order impugned keeping in view the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rekha Yadav (supra), as such the order impugned is patently beyond jurisdiction of the State Government and consequently it is prayed that the order impugned be quashed.

11. On the other hand, Shri Prashant Singh Atal, learned Chief Standing Counsel has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Prof. Ramesh Chandra vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors : 2007 SCC OnLine All 2508 to contend that considering the provisions of Section 12(12) of the Act, 1973 read with the judgment of this Court in the case of Prof. Ramesh Chandra (supra), it is apparent that the State Government in fact has power to issue directions as have been issued in the instant case and thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

12. Further contention is that it is only a four member enquiry committee which has been constituted by the State Government and none of the rights of the petitioners are affected and thus on this ground also writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it emerges that the petitioner who is working as Lecturer in the Lucknow University has filed the instant petition being aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2025 which has been passed by the State Government by which a four member committee has been constituted to enquire into his appointment and submit its report to the State Government within a period of 15 days.

14. The order is sought to be challenged on the ground that under the provisions of Act, 1973, the State Government does not have jurisdiction to pass such an order. On the other hand, learned State counsel has referred to the provisions of Section 12(12) of the Act, 1973 and the Division Bench judgment in the case of Prof. Ramesh Chandra (supra) to contend that the State Government in fact has power to pass such an order and such power has been exercised correctly by the State Government.

15. Section 12(12) of the Act, 1973 on reproduction reads as under:- "12... (12) If in the opinion of the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor wilfully omits or refuses to carry out the provisions of this Act or abuses the powers vested in him, or if it otherwise appears to the Chancellor that the continuance of the Vice-Chancellor in office is detrimental to the interest of the University, the Chancellor may, after making such inquiry as he deems proper, by order, remove the Vice-Chancellor."

16. Section 66A of the Act, 1973 on reproduction reads as under:- "66-A. The State Government may issue such directions from time to time to a University on policy matters, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as it may deem necessary such direction shall be complied with by the University.)"

17. Perusal of Section 12(12) of the Act, 1973 would indicate that if in the opinion of Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor willfully omits or refuses to carry out the provisions of the Act, 1973 or abuses the powers vested in him, or if it otherwise appears to the Chancellor that the continuance of the Vice Chancellor in office is detrimental to the interest of the University, the Chancellor may, after making such inquiry as he deems proper, by order, remove the Vice Chancellor.

18. In the instant case, it is not the Vice Chancellor against whom enquiry committee has been constituted by the State Government. The petitioner is currently working as a Professor in the University and thus a perusal of the Section 12(12) of the Act, 1973 itself indicates that no such order under the aforesaid provisions could have been passed against the petitioner.

19. The judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prof. Ramesh Chandra (supra) also indicates that this aspect of the matter has been considered in para 11 of the judgment wherein the Division Bench has held that provisions of Section 12 (12) of the Act, 1973 operates in a different field inasmuch as Section 12(12) of the Act, 1973 specifically deal with the power of the Chancellor to remove the Vice Chancellor of the University. As already indicated above, the said power has not been exercised against the Vice Chancellor of the University rather it is being exercised against the petitioner who is currently working as Professor and thus provisions of Section 12(12) of the Act, 1973 do not come to the rescue of the respondents-State in passing the order impugned.

20. So far as Section 66A of the Act, 1973 is concerned, the same categorically provides that the State Government may issue directions from time to time to a University on policy matters not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, 1973.

21. From a bare perusal of the provisions of Section 66-A of the Act, 1973, it is apparent that the said directions can be issued by the State Government pertaining to a policy matter but in the instant case, it is not a policy matter which has been directed to be enquired into by the State Government by constituting a four member committee rather pertains to constituting a committee for considering the appointment of the petitioner, which was made as Lecturer which is said to be made way back in the year 2005. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rekha Yadav (supra) has considered this aspect of the matter and has held that the State Government has no authority to intervene in the matter and to issue an order which does not fall within the realm of being a policy decision. By no stretch of imagination can the order impugned be said to be an order falling within the realm of a policy matter.

22. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, it is thus apparent that the impugned order has been passed by the State Government without having any authority to do so as such it merits to be quashed. Consequently the order dated 08.01.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Consequences to follow.

23. However, it would be open for the competent authority to pass a fresh order, if required, in accordance with law under relevant rules. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 prateek PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. Shri Utsav Mishra, learned counsel after arguing at some length prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the application for intervention with liberty to pursue other remedy that may be available to him.

4. Accordingly, the application is rejected with liberty as prayed aforesaid.

5. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally.

6. This writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- "(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Office Order No.VIP60/Sattar-1-2024 dated 08.01.2025 issued by the Special Secretary, Department of Higher Education Section-I, Government of U.P., Lucknow the respondent No.2, as contained in Annexure No.1, after summoning the same from the respondent no.1 and 2. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, particularly the respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to give effect to, and not to implement or take any further action pursuant to the Office Order No.VIP60/Sattar-1-2024 dated 08.01.2025 issued by the Special Secretary, Department of Higher Education Section-I, Government of U.P., Lucknow - respondent No.2, as contained in Annexure No.1, pending final decision of the writ petition. (iii)... (iv).... "

7. By means of the order dated 08.01.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, the State Government has constituted a committee of four members to enquire into the appointment of the petitioner. Said committee has been required to submit a report to the State Government within a period of 15 days.

8. The order impugned has been challenged on the ground that the State Government does not have any power to issue a direction as has been done in the instant case. In this regard, reliance has been placed on Section 66-A of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1973') to contend that Section 66-A of the Act, 1973 would only pertain to the directions to be issued by the State Government to a University on policy matters inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, 1973.

9. Placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt Rekha Yadav vs State of U.P. & Ors : [2012(30) LCD 1017], the argument is that the Division Bench of this Court has held that the State Government has no power either to make enquiry or to issue any direction which varies the terms and conditions of the appointment of the petitioner and that State Government has no authority to intervene in the matter and issue any such order.

10. The contention is that once the Act, 1973 itself does not empower the State Government to issue the order impugned keeping in view the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rekha Yadav (supra), as such the order impugned is patently beyond jurisdiction of the State Government and consequently it is prayed that the order impugned be quashed.

11. On the other hand, Shri Prashant Singh Atal, learned Chief Standing Counsel has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Prof. Ramesh Chandra vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors : 2007 SCC OnLine All 2508 to contend that considering the provisions of Section 12(12) of the Act, 1973 read with the judgment of this Court in the case of Prof. Ramesh Chandra (supra), it is apparent that the State Government in fact has power to issue directions as have been issued in the instant case and thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

12. Further contention is that it is only a four member enquiry committee which has been constituted by the State Government and none of the rights of the petitioners are affected and thus on this ground also writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it emerges that the petitioner who is working as Lecturer in the Lucknow University has filed the instant petition being aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2025 which has been passed by the State Government by which a four member committee has been constituted to enquire into his appointment and submit its report to the State Government within a period of 15 days.

14. The order is sought to be challenged on the ground that under the provisions of Act, 1973, the State Government does not have jurisdiction to pass such an order. On the other hand, learned State counsel has referred to the provisions of Section 12(12) of the Act, 1973 and the Division Bench judgment in the case of Prof. Ramesh Chandra (supra) to contend that the State Government in fact has power to pass such an order and such power has been exercised correctly by the State Government.

15. Section 12(12) of the Act, 1973 on reproduction reads as under:- "12... (12) If in the opinion of the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor wilfully omits or refuses to carry out the provisions of this Act or abuses the powers vested in him, or if it otherwise appears to the Chancellor that the continuance of the Vice-Chancellor in office is detrimental to the interest of the University, the Chancellor may, after making such inquiry as he deems proper, by order, remove the Vice-Chancellor."

16. Section 66A of the Act, 1973 on reproduction reads as under:- "66-A. The State Government may issue such directions from time to time to a University on policy matters, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as it may deem necessary such direction shall be complied with by the University.)"

17. Perusal of Section 12(12) of the Act, 1973 would indicate that if in the opinion of Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor willfully omits or refuses to carry out the provisions of the Act, 1973 or abuses the powers vested in him, or if it otherwise appears to the Chancellor that the continuance of the Vice Chancellor in office is detrimental to the interest of the University, the Chancellor may, after making such inquiry as he deems proper, by order, remove the Vice Chancellor.

18. In the instant case, it is not the Vice Chancellor against whom enquiry committee has been constituted by the State Government. The petitioner is currently working as a Professor in the University and thus a perusal of the Section 12(12) of the Act, 1973 itself indicates that no such order under the aforesaid provisions could have been passed against the petitioner.

19. The judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prof. Ramesh Chandra (supra) also indicates that this aspect of the matter has been considered in para 11 of the judgment wherein the Division Bench has held that provisions of Section 12 (12) of the Act, 1973 operates in a different field inasmuch as Section 12(12) of the Act, 1973 specifically deal with the power of the Chancellor to remove the Vice Chancellor of the University. As already indicated above, the said power has not been exercised against the Vice Chancellor of the University rather it is being exercised against the petitioner who is currently working as Professor and thus provisions of Section 12(12) of the Act, 1973 do not come to the rescue of the respondents-State in passing the order impugned.

20. So far as Section 66A of the Act, 1973 is concerned, the same categorically provides that the State Government may issue directions from time to time to a University on policy matters not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, 1973.

21. From a bare perusal of the provisions of Section 66-A of the Act, 1973, it is apparent that the said directions can be issued by the State Government pertaining to a policy matter but in the instant case, it is not a policy matter which has been directed to be enquired into by the State Government by constituting a four member committee rather pertains to constituting a committee for considering the appointment of the petitioner, which was made as Lecturer which is said to be made way back in the year 2005. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rekha Yadav (supra) has considered this aspect of the matter and has held that the State Government has no authority to intervene in the matter and to issue an order which does not fall within the realm of being a policy decision. By no stretch of imagination can the order impugned be said to be an order falling within the realm of a policy matter.

22. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, it is thus apparent that the impugned order has been passed by the State Government without having any authority to do so as such it merits to be quashed. Consequently the order dated 08.01.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Consequences to follow.

23. However, it would be open for the competent authority to pass a fresh order, if required, in accordance with law under relevant rules. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 prateek PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench