Ram Lakhan Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Edu.
Case Details
Personal affidavit filed by Mr. Vijayendra Pandian K is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Vatsala, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr. Vivek Raj Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. The controversy involved in the present matter is that an advertisement was published in the year 2014 and the interview was held but the result was not declared even after passing of about eleven years. Under this anxiety, this Court directed the Board to open the sealed cover, vide order dated 12.11.2025 whereafter the Board of Management of the respondent University took decision and cancelled the recommendation of the selection committee. Thereafter, on 21.11.2025, following order was passed by this Court:- "Short counter affidavit filed today by Mr. Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5 is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Vatsala Singh, counsel for respondent no. 2, Mr. Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 5, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the records. On 12.11.2025, the following order was passed:- ""Order on C.M.Application No.IA/02/2025 Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-petitioner is pressing the correction application dated 06-11-2025 and submits that due to typographical error, in the last paragraph of the order dated 03-11-2025, on place of 'Advertisement no. 3/2014','Advertisement no. 5/2014', has wrongly been transcribed. He submits that the 2 WRIA No. 12751 of 2025 same may be corrected. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties have no objection to the contentions aforesaid. In view of the above, the correction application is allowed and in the last paragraph of the order dated 03-11-2025, on place of 'Advertisement no. 5/2014', 'Advertisement no. 3/2014', shall be read. The order dated 03-11-2025 is corrected accordingly. Order on Writ Petition Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent-university, Dr.Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State,Sri Praful Vashishtha, Advocate,holding brief of Ms. Vatsala Singh,learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. On 03-11-2025, the following order was passed:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent-university, Dr.Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State,Sri Praful Vashishtha, Advocate,holding brief of Sri Vatsala Singh,learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. The present writ petition has been filed with the following main reliefs :- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to declare the result of advertisement no. 5 of 2014 regarding which interview had already been held on 23.12.2014 before completing the selection proceeding in pursuance of subsequent advertisement no. 3 of 2024. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 & 2 to pass an appropriate order on the representations of petitioner dated 05.10.2025 after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner (Annexure No.17 to this writ petition)" Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner applied in pursuant to the advertisement no. 05 of 2014, for the post of Programme Coordinator and the interview was conducted and the decision was put into a sealed cover which has still not been opened, even after passing of 11 years. He submitted that the advertisement no. 05 of 2014 has neither been stayed by any court of law nor it has been cancelled by the Board of Management and therefore, there is no reason to sit tight over the decision for opening of the sealed cover. Learned counsel for the respondent-university submits that all the advertisements, after the enquiry held, have been cancelled vide 152nd meeting of Board of Management of the respondent-university. In support of his contentions, he has placed the instructions before this court and submitted that in point no. 5 of the meeting of the Board of Management, all the advertisements have been cancelled. Upon perusal of the aforesaid instructions, it is apparent that in point no. 5 of the minutes of the meeting of 152nd Meeting of Board of Management, it is apparent that the advertisement nos. 1/2014 and 03/2014 have been cancelled and there is no mention regarding the adversemtnt no. 05 of 2014, which infact pertains to the present 3 WRIA No. 12751 of 2025 petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-university submits that he may be granted a week's time to seek instructions that whether any decision has been taken by the Board of Management for cancelling the advertisement no. 05 of 2014 in it's any meeting. As prayed, list/put up this matter on 12-11-2025 in the list of fresh cases. It is provided that further proceedings regarding advertisement no. 5/2014 shall be subject to the final outcome of this writ petition. " In compliance of the order aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- university submits that vide the Board's meeting dated 06-09-2017, the advertisement no.01/2014 and advertisement no. 03/2014 have been cancelled, but, so far as the advertisement no. 05/2014, is concerned, that has not been cancelled, as yet. the post of Programme Coordinator, Briefly stated facts of the case are, that Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture & Technology, Kanpur(hereinafter referred to as 'University') is governed by the provisions of The U.P. Krishi Evam Prodyogic Vishwavidyalaya, Adhiniyam, 1958(hereafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam, 1958'). The university invited applications for appointments, by way of the advertisement no.01/2014, advertisement no. 03/2014 and advertisement no. 05/2014 for various posts. The issue herein, is with respect to the advertisement no. 05/2014, by which the applications were invited for appointments on for Krishi Vigyan Kendra(KVK). The interviews took place wherein the present petitioner also appeared and thereafter, the decision of the Interview Committee was put into a sealed cover. In the meantime, some complaint was made to the Chancellor, wherein an enquiry committee was constituted, headed by a retired Judge of Hon'ble High Court, with two other members, who submitted it's report but two members had given their dissent opinion. Thereafter, vide order dated 30-12-2014, the meeting of the Board of Management, was stayed but on 06-09-2017, the meeting of the Board of Management was held and decision with respect to advertisement no. 01/2014 and the advertisement no. 03/2014, was taken and the interviews, which took place in pursuance to those advertisements, were cancelled. The interviews, which were held in pursuance to the advertisement no. 05/2014, has not been cancelled by the Board of Management, even after passing of about 11 years, as admittedly, the interviews have been held in the year 2014. Further, promotions on the post of Professor etc., have been done under chairmanship of Mr. Munna Singh, against whom the enquiry was instituted, but, the decision of such committee has been underrtaken and Mr. Munna Singh has not been awarded any major punishment. This court has also noticed that the State Government has power under section 7 of the Act, 1958, which reads as under:- "7. (1) The State Government shall have the right to cause an inspection to be made by such person or persons, as it may direct, of the University, its build-ings, laboratories and equipment and of any institution maintained by the University and to cause an enquiry to be made in like manner in respect of any matter connected with the administration and the finance of the University. (2) The State Government shall in every case give notice to the University of its intention to cause ins-pection or enquiry to be made, and the University shall be entitled to appoint a representative who shall have the right to be present and be heard at such inspection or enquiry. 4 WRIA No. 12751 of 2025 (3) The State Government may address the Board with reference to the result of such inspection and enquiry with such advice as the State Government may offer regarding the action to be taken. 4) The Board shall communicate to the State Government such action, if any, as it proposes to take or has taken upon the result of such inspection or enquiry. (5) If the Board does not, within a reasonable time, take action to the satisfaction of the State Government, the State Government may, after considering any explanation furnished or representation made by the said Board issue such directions as it may think fit and the Board shall be bound to comply with such directions." By virtue of the aforesaid provisions, the State has a right to cause an inspection to be made in respect of any matter connected with administration and the finance of the 'University'. The Board of Management of the respondent-university, is sitting tight over the matter since last eleven years and therefore, certainly, this on the administrative side, the State Government could have been interferred. It is the perplexing fact that the agriculture university, which has been established for proliferating the knowledge amongst the students and to do inventions for betterment of the agriculturalists of this country, wherein the eighty percent of the people is based on agriculture,the interviews, which have already been held, have been put into a sealed cover and no one is bothered to even take a decision for opening of the sealed cover so as to come to the conclusion of the result of the Interview Committee, whereas the state is also represented as member in Board of Management of the 'University'. Upon aforesaid, this court prima-facie finds that there is no impediment under any law for opening sealed cover decision of the Interview Committee, which has been withheld since last 11 years, as the same has neither been cancelled nor stayed by any authority. List/put up this matter on 21-11-2025 at 02.15 P.M., as fresh. If the decision for opening of the sealed cover is not taken by the next date, the Additional Chief Secretary, Agriculture Education and Research,Government of U.P., Lucknow and the Chairman, Board of Management shall remain present before this court to show cause as to why the matter is kept pending since last 11 years, which creates great hindrance in the smooth functioning of the 'K.V.K.', which is being run, under the respondent- agriculture university. If the sealed-cover is opened by the next date, the aforesaid authorities need not to be present before this court."" The order is very clear in its terms that the Board of Management of the respondent- University was sitting tight over the matter, since last 11 years and no decision was taken on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, so far as the advertisement no. 5/2024 is concerned. Considering the lethargyness on the part of the Board of Management, this Court directed the Board of Management to 'open the sealed cover' and the consequence was also provided that if the sealed cover would not be opened, the Additional Chief Secretary, Agriculture Education and Research,Government of U.P., Lucknow and the Chairman, Board of Management shall remain present before this court while showing the cause that why the recommendation of the Selection Committee was kept to wait for 11 years and no decision is taken. 5 WRIA No. 12751 of 2025 Perusal of the agenda appended as annexure no. 2 alongwith the short counter- affidavit, it reveals that it was proposed that 'the decision is to be taken in compliance of the order dated 12.11.2025 passed in Writ A No. 12751 of 2025 regarding the advertisement no. 5/2014'. This agenda itself is ambiguous, as it seems that the authorities did not take any pain to even read the operative portion of the order dated 12.11.2025, as there was specific direction that the decision for opening the 'sealed cover', be taken, though, the same is not mentioned in the proposal/resolution, which was placed in the agenda. The decision of The Board of Management is apparent that instead of opening the 'sealed cover' and intimating the same to this Court, the decision for canceling the recommendation of the Selection Committee has been made, which goes against the terms of the order dated 12.11.2025. This is startling fact that the authorities like Secretary and above than the Secretary level were taking the decision, but they do not bother to look into the gist of the operative portion of the order dated 12.11.2025. The exercise done by the authorities indicates towards the efforts to make the order of this Court blunt and redundant. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the University authority as well as the State were keeping mum and sitting tight over the decision with respect to the recommendation of selection committee of the year 2014 and that too is with respect to an Agricultural University. This Court finds that the authorities have no care with respect to the functioning of the University, which deals with agricultural education as since last 11 years, the work and functioning of the important post like program coordinator of Krishi Vigyan Kendra was being hampered and by way of taking a decision, after the order passed on 12.11.2025, they have completed the mere formalities, which seems that they have no thought that how serious this matter is. Prima faice, it seems that the decision has been taken with the target to render the writ petition infructuous. This Court is not satisfied with the short counter-affidavit filed by the Registrar of the respondent-university and even the counsel for the University has also failed to substantiate that the order dated 12.11.2025 has been complied with. Under the abovesaid circumstances, this Court directs the Chairman, Board of Management to remain present before this Court, along with his personal affidavit explaining that why the order dated 12.11.2025 has not been complied with, in it's letter and spirit and why the decision has been kept pending since last eleven years. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Agriculture, shall also join the proceedings of this Court, through Video Conferencing. List/put up this matter on 24.11.2025 at 10:15 am. " In compliance of the order dated 21.11.2025, it has been submitted that the sealed cover was opened and it was found that the petitioner is not one of the selected candidates and, therefore, looking into the complaints etc., the recommendation of the selection committee has been cancelled, vide the resolution dated 19.11.2025, with regard to the advertisement No.5 of 2014. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the resolution of the Board of Management is in compliance of the interim order dated 12.11.2025 passed by this Court. He submitted that the wordings of 6 WRIA No. 12751 of 2025 the order are very clear that the sealed cover would be opened, whereas the recommendation of the selection committee has been cancelled and, therefore, the Board of Management has exceeded to take decision, as any action of the respondent University is under the teeth of the order dated 12.11.2025 of the selected candidate. Upon considering the aforesaid, it is apparent that the Board of Management of the respondent University has taken a decision and has cancelled the recommendation of the selection committee. In fact, the order was for opening the sealed cover but the decision by the Board of Management is taken for cancellation of the recommendation of the selection committee. This Court has also considered that after opening of the sealed cover, it was found that the present petitioner is not the selected one. In this view of the matter, the present petition is hereby dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order/ decision of the Board of Management, if he so desires. While parting with this order, the authorities of the respondent University, is warned to remain careful about the directions/orders passed by this Court, in future. Personal presence of Mr. Vijayendra Pandian K, Chairman of the Board of Management and the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Agriculture are hereby exempted. November 24, 2025 Ram Murti (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Personal affidavit filed by Mr. Vijayendra Pandian K is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Vatsala, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr. Vivek Raj Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. The controversy involved in the present matter is that an advertisement was published in the year 2014 and the interview was held but the result was not declared even after passing of about eleven years. Under this anxiety, this Court directed the Board to open the sealed cover, vide order dated 12.11.2025 whereafter the Board of Management of the respondent University took decision and cancelled the recommendation of the selection committee. Thereafter, on 21.11.2025, following order was passed by this Court:- "Short counter affidavit filed today by Mr. Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5 is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Vatsala Singh, counsel for respondent no. 2, Mr. Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 5, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the records. On 12.11.2025, the following order was passed:- ""Order on C.M.Application No.IA/02/2025 Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-petitioner is pressing the correction application dated 06-11-2025 and submits that due to typographical error, in the last paragraph of the order dated 03-11-2025, on place of 'Advertisement no. 3/2014','Advertisement no. 5/2014', has wrongly been transcribed. He submits that the 2 WRIA No. 12751 of 2025 same may be corrected. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties have no objection to the contentions aforesaid. In view of the above, the correction application is allowed and in the last paragraph of the order dated 03-11-2025, on place of 'Advertisement no. 5/2014', 'Advertisement no. 3/2014', shall be read. The order dated 03-11-2025 is corrected accordingly. Order on Writ Petition Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent-university, Dr.Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State,Sri Praful Vashishtha, Advocate,holding brief of Ms. Vatsala Singh,learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. On 03-11-2025, the following order was passed:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent-university, Dr.Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State,Sri Praful Vashishtha, Advocate,holding brief of Sri Vatsala Singh,learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. The present writ petition has been filed with the following main reliefs :- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to declare the result of advertisement no. 5 of 2014 regarding which interview had already been held on 23.12.2014 before completing the selection proceeding in pursuance of subsequent advertisement no. 3 of 2024. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 & 2 to pass an appropriate order on the representations of petitioner dated 05.10.2025 after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner (Annexure No.17 to this writ petition)" Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner applied in pursuant to the advertisement no. 05 of 2014, for the post of Programme Coordinator and the interview was conducted and the decision was put into a sealed cover which has still not been opened, even after passing of 11 years. He submitted that the advertisement no. 05 of 2014 has neither been stayed by any court of law nor it has been cancelled by the Board of Management and therefore, there is no reason to sit tight over the decision for opening of the sealed cover. Learned counsel for the respondent-university submits that all the advertisements, after the enquiry held, have been cancelled vide 152nd meeting of Board of Management of the respondent-university. In support of his contentions, he has placed the instructions before this court and submitted that in point no. 5 of the meeting of the Board of Management, all the advertisements have been cancelled. Upon perusal of the aforesaid instructions, it is apparent that in point no. 5 of the minutes of the meeting of 152nd Meeting of Board of Management, it is apparent that the advertisement nos. 1/2014 and 03/2014 have been cancelled and there is no mention regarding the adversemtnt no. 05 of 2014, which infact pertains to the present 3 WRIA No. 12751 of 2025 petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-university submits that he may be granted a week's time to seek instructions that whether any decision has been taken by the Board of Management for cancelling the advertisement no. 05 of 2014 in it's any meeting. As prayed, list/put up this matter on 12-11-2025 in the list of fresh cases. It is provided that further proceedings regarding advertisement no. 5/2014 shall be subject to the final outcome of this writ petition. " In compliance of the order aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- university submits that vide the Board's meeting dated 06-09-2017, the advertisement no.01/2014 and advertisement no. 03/2014 have been cancelled, but, so far as the advertisement no. 05/2014, is concerned, that has not been cancelled, as yet. the post of Programme Coordinator, Briefly stated facts of the case are, that Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture & Technology, Kanpur(hereinafter referred to as 'University') is governed by the provisions of The U.P. Krishi Evam Prodyogic Vishwavidyalaya, Adhiniyam, 1958(hereafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam, 1958'). The university invited applications for appointments, by way of the advertisement no.01/2014, advertisement no. 03/2014 and advertisement no. 05/2014 for various posts. The issue herein, is with respect to the advertisement no. 05/2014, by which the applications were invited for appointments on for Krishi Vigyan Kendra(KVK). The interviews took place wherein the present petitioner also appeared and thereafter, the decision of the Interview Committee was put into a sealed cover. In the meantime, some complaint was made to the Chancellor, wherein an enquiry committee was constituted, headed by a retired Judge of Hon'ble High Court, with two other members, who submitted it's report but two members had given their dissent opinion. Thereafter, vide order dated 30-12-2014, the meeting of the Board of Management, was stayed but on 06-09-2017, the meeting of the Board of Management was held and decision with respect to advertisement no. 01/2014 and the advertisement no. 03/2014, was taken and the interviews, which took place in pursuance to those advertisements, were cancelled. The interviews, which were held in pursuance to the advertisement no. 05/2014, has not been cancelled by the Board of Management, even after passing of about 11 years, as admittedly, the interviews have been held in the year 2014. Further, promotions on the post of Professor etc., have been done under chairmanship of Mr. Munna Singh, against whom the enquiry was instituted, but, the decision of such committee has been underrtaken and Mr. Munna Singh has not been awarded any major punishment. This court has also noticed that the State Government has power under section 7 of the Act, 1958, which reads as under:- "7. (1) The State Government shall have the right to cause an inspection to be made by such person or persons, as it may direct, of the University, its build-ings, laboratories and equipment and of any institution maintained by the University and to cause an enquiry to be made in like manner in respect of any matter connected with the administration and the finance of the University. (2) The State Government shall in every case give notice to the University of its intention to cause ins-pection or enquiry to be made, and the University shall be entitled to appoint a representative who shall have the right to be present and be heard at such inspection or enquiry. 4 WRIA No. 12751 of 2025 (3) The State Government may address the Board with reference to the result of such inspection and enquiry with such advice as the State Government may offer regarding the action to be taken. 4) The Board shall communicate to the State Government such action, if any, as it proposes to take or has taken upon the result of such inspection or enquiry. (5) If the Board does not, within a reasonable time, take action to the satisfaction of the State Government, the State Government may, after considering any explanation furnished or representation made by the said Board issue such directions as it may think fit and the Board shall be bound to comply with such directions." By virtue of the aforesaid provisions, the State has a right to cause an inspection to be made in respect of any matter connected with administration and the finance of the 'University'. The Board of Management of the respondent-university, is sitting tight over the matter since last eleven years and therefore, certainly, this on the administrative side, the State Government could have been interferred. It is the perplexing fact that the agriculture university, which has been established for proliferating the knowledge amongst the students and to do inventions for betterment of the agriculturalists of this country, wherein the eighty percent of the people is based on agriculture,the interviews, which have already been held, have been put into a sealed cover and no one is bothered to even take a decision for opening of the sealed cover so as to come to the conclusion of the result of the Interview Committee, whereas the state is also represented as member in Board of Management of the 'University'. Upon aforesaid, this court prima-facie finds that there is no impediment under any law for opening sealed cover decision of the Interview Committee, which has been withheld since last 11 years, as the same has neither been cancelled nor stayed by any authority. List/put up this matter on 21-11-2025 at 02.15 P.M., as fresh. If the decision for opening of the sealed cover is not taken by the next date, the Additional Chief Secretary, Agriculture Education and Research,Government of U.P., Lucknow and the Chairman, Board of Management shall remain present before this court to show cause as to why the matter is kept pending since last 11 years, which creates great hindrance in the smooth functioning of the 'K.V.K.', which is being run, under the respondent- agriculture university. If the sealed-cover is opened by the next date, the aforesaid authorities need not to be present before this court."" The order is very clear in its terms that the Board of Management of the respondent- University was sitting tight over the matter, since last 11 years and no decision was taken on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, so far as the advertisement no. 5/2024 is concerned. Considering the lethargyness on the part of the Board of Management, this Court directed the Board of Management to 'open the sealed cover' and the consequence was also provided that if the sealed cover would not be opened, the Additional Chief Secretary, Agriculture Education and Research,Government of U.P., Lucknow and the Chairman, Board of Management shall remain present before this court while showing the cause that why the recommendation of the Selection Committee was kept to wait for 11 years and no decision is taken. 5 WRIA No. 12751 of 2025 Perusal of the agenda appended as annexure no. 2 alongwith the short counter- affidavit, it reveals that it was proposed that 'the decision is to be taken in compliance of the order dated 12.11.2025 passed in Writ A No. 12751 of 2025 regarding the advertisement no. 5/2014'. This agenda itself is ambiguous, as it seems that the authorities did not take any pain to even read the operative portion of the order dated 12.11.2025, as there was specific direction that the decision for opening the 'sealed cover', be taken, though, the same is not mentioned in the proposal/resolution, which was placed in the agenda. The decision of The Board of Management is apparent that instead of opening the 'sealed cover' and intimating the same to this Court, the decision for canceling the recommendation of the Selection Committee has been made, which goes against the terms of the order dated 12.11.2025. This is startling fact that the authorities like Secretary and above than the Secretary level were taking the decision, but they do not bother to look into the gist of the operative portion of the order dated 12.11.2025. The exercise done by the authorities indicates towards the efforts to make the order of this Court blunt and redundant. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the University authority as well as the State were keeping mum and sitting tight over the decision with respect to the recommendation of selection committee of the year 2014 and that too is with respect to an Agricultural University. This Court finds that the authorities have no care with respect to the functioning of the University, which deals with agricultural education as since last 11 years, the work and functioning of the important post like program coordinator of Krishi Vigyan Kendra was being hampered and by way of taking a decision, after the order passed on 12.11.2025, they have completed the mere formalities, which seems that they have no thought that how serious this matter is. Prima faice, it seems that the decision has been taken with the target to render the writ petition infructuous. This Court is not satisfied with the short counter-affidavit filed by the Registrar of the respondent-university and even the counsel for the University has also failed to substantiate that the order dated 12.11.2025 has been complied with. Under the abovesaid circumstances, this Court directs the Chairman, Board of Management to remain present before this Court, along with his personal affidavit explaining that why the order dated 12.11.2025 has not been complied with, in it's letter and spirit and why the decision has been kept pending since last eleven years. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Agriculture, shall also join the proceedings of this Court, through Video Conferencing. List/put up this matter on 24.11.2025 at 10:15 am. " In compliance of the order dated 21.11.2025, it has been submitted that the sealed cover was opened and it was found that the petitioner is not one of the selected candidates and, therefore, looking into the complaints etc., the recommendation of the selection committee has been cancelled, vide the resolution dated 19.11.2025, with regard to the advertisement No.5 of 2014. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the resolution of the Board of Management is in compliance of the interim order dated 12.11.2025 passed by this Court. He submitted that the wordings of 6 WRIA No. 12751 of 2025 the order are very clear that the sealed cover would be opened, whereas the recommendation of the selection committee has been cancelled and, therefore, the Board of Management has exceeded to take decision, as any action of the respondent University is under the teeth of the order dated 12.11.2025 of the selected candidate. Upon considering the aforesaid, it is apparent that the Board of Management of the respondent University has taken a decision and has cancelled the recommendation of the selection committee. In fact, the order was for opening the sealed cover but the decision by the Board of Management is taken for cancellation of the recommendation of the selection committee. This Court has also considered that after opening of the sealed cover, it was found that the present petitioner is not the selected one. In this view of the matter, the present petition is hereby dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order/ decision of the Board of Management, if he so desires. While parting with this order, the authorities of the respondent University, is warned to remain careful about the directions/orders passed by this Court, in future. Personal presence of Mr. Vijayendra Pandian K, Chairman of the Board of Management and the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Agriculture are hereby exempted. November 24, 2025 Ram Murti (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench