Dr. Vijay Bahadur Jaiswal And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Edu. And

8. He further argued that since Mr. Ram Lakhan Singh, the petitioner in the Writ Petition No. 12751 of 2025, was not recommended by the selection committee for appointment, as anyhow the sealed covers are opened, 4 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 wherein, it was found the petitioners were recommended for appointment in furtherance to the advertisement no. 5/2014. The present petitioners, being agrieved with the decision dated 19.11.2025 have instituted the present writ petition.

9. The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the sole and main ground for rejecting the recommendation of the Selection Committee while taking the decision vide impugned order dated 19.11.2025 is that the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualification as is provided under the Circular file No. 1-3/2009AE-1 dated 29.03.2011 issued by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research(hereinafter, referred to as ICAR). He has drawn attention towards the circular dated 29.03.2011 issued by ICAR appended as annexure no. 16 to this writ petition and submitted that, in fact, the aforesaid circular do not have binding effect, so far as the minimum eligibility criteria for the post of Program Coordinator is concerned. In support of his contentions, he has referred Section 28(r) of Chapter 21 of the Act, 1958, which reads as under:- "(r) the number, qualifications, emoluments and other conditions of service (including the age of retirement) of teachers and salaried officers of the University, and the preparation and maintenance of a record of their services and activities;"

10. Referring the aforesaid, he submitted that so far as the number, qualifications and other service conditions of the Teachers and salaried officers of the University is concerned, the provisions prescribes that the number of Teachers in each department and their qualifications shall be as 'recommended by the academic council and approved by the Board of Management.' He submitted that, admittedly, the Board of Management in its 150th meeting, in agenda no. 10, has placed the issue regarding the approval of the qualification criteria for direct recruitment and that too has been approved and in consonance thereof, the advertisement no. 5/2014 was published. He submitted that nothing will be valid against the provisions prescribed under the statute and if the authorities had taken decision that, since the minimum eligibility criterion and the qualification which was 5 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 prescribed in the advertisement no. 5 of 2014, is against the circular of ICAR dated 29.03.2011, wherein, certain qualifications and criteria are prescribed, have not been complied with, the same goes against the provision of statute, therefore, the finding and the decision, taken as such, by the Board of Management itself is unlawful.

11. While buttress his arguments, he submitted that in fact the decision which was taken by the Board of Management after an interim order was passed by this Court on 03.11.2025, in Writ A No. 12751 of 2025, is in fact, do not stand on its own legs, as the finding which is recorded and the reasoning which have been given, are nonest and is against the law, therefore, the whole decision which was taken on 09.11.2025, canceling the recommendation of the Selection Committee, vitiates in the eyes of law. He further added that since the decision with respect to the qualification which was approved in 150th meeting of Board of Management of the respondent- University has been reviewed in the order dated 19.11.2025, thus, the same is also against the settled proposition of law as the Board of Management could not review its own orders. He submitted that in fact the resolution which was passed in 150th meeting of Board of Management of the University has neither been revoked nor cancelled by any competent authority.

12. He has also given strength to his arguments while referring the judgment and order rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill versus Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi - (1978) 1 SCC 40 and has referred paragraph 8 of the abovesaid judgment:- "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] : 6 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older."

13. In addition, the counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the status of ICAR has also been decided in the judgment and order rendered in the case of Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar and Another Versus State of U.P. and Others alongwith other connected writ petitions, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine All 2986, and he has referred paragraph nos. 20, 35 and 49 of the abovesaid judgment, which are extracted as under:- ""20. Sri Ganguli has accepted during the course of his submission that this budget has been kept under a different head and State Government has nothing to do with that budget provided by the Council inasmuch as those appointed and employed on the posts of Scientist or Subject Matter Specialist at the centre (KVK) only as per the MOU and State Government has never provided any matching grant or has directed for framing any rules or regulations to otherwise provide for the service conditions of such employees. Sri Ganguli would also not dispute that Chandra Shekhar Azad Agricultural University has also not made any amendment in its first Statute which has been made applicable to the universities separately to govern the service condition of the employees like Scientist, Subject Matter Specialist and other technical staff or other regular staff working with KVK.

35. Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the other university, namely, Chandra Shekhar Azad University in one connected matter, adopts the arguments advanced by Sri Ganguli with a further addition that judgment in the case of Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey (supra) would not apply as there in that case there was a resolution of the Board of Management of the university concerned taking such staff of the KVK at par with the faculty of university but here there is no such resolution placed before the Court.

49. Now interestingly, Division Bench has also noticed the stand of ICAR filed before the Court by means of a short counter affidavit, vide paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 of the judgment which are reproduced hereunder: "(20) The ICAR has filed a short counter affidavit which also needs to be referred to. According to the short counter affidavit, Krishi Vigyan Kendras are established under the administrative control of a Host Organization which in this case is the University. 7 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 The said short counter affidavit states that the ICAR provides cent percent financial assistance to Krishi Vigyan Kendras under the 'Salary' and 'General' heads of the annual budget and further that the service conditions of the employees of the Krishi Vigyan Kendras are to be governed by the Rules, Regulations and Policies of the respective organization. The ICAR in the said short counter affidavit has clearly stated that the University is the Host Organization and at the time of Memorandum of establishment of Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Understanding was signed between ICAR and the Host Organization according to which all staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras shall be borne on the establishment of the Grantee (Host Organization) only. It also provides that the administrative control over the staff employed under the Scheme, shall vest in the host institution and that placement of the staff in case the project is terminated shall be the sole responsibility of the Host Organization. (21) Para 13 of the short counter affidavit filed by the ICAR, it has been clearly stated that staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras are the employees of the Host Organization and not that of ICAR. Such stipulation is made in the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the ICAR and the University. The short counter affidavit further refers to a Circular of the ICAR dated 17.06.2015 according to which all staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras shall be borne on the establishment of the Host Institution and further that the service conditions including recruitment, appointment etc. of the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendra shall be regulated as per the Rules and Regulations of the Host Institution. In para 16 of the short counter affidavit, it has been stated that as per Circular dated 17.06.2015 issued by the ICAR, the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras are the employees of the respective Host Organizations and in this case, all the employees of Krishi Vigyan Kendras are the employees of th University and their service conditions such as appointment, probation, promotion, disciplinary matters, leave rules and age of superannuation etc. will be governed by the Rules and Regulations of the University. It also mentions that the age of retirement/superannuation is to be decided by the respective Host Organization. Thus, the case of ICAR is that the conditions of service including the age of superannuation will be as per the Rules applicable to the employees of the University and further that the staff working in Krishi Vigyan Kendras are the staff of the Host Organization which in this case is the University. (22) The State Counsel has argued that the petitioners are the employees of Krishi Vigyan Kendras and not that of the University. However, having regard to the stand taken by the ICAR and as per the Memorandum of Understanding entered into ICAR which is Funding Agency and the University, it is the Host Institute under whose control the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras work. As per the said Memorandum of Understanding, so far as the conditions of service of the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras are concerned, the same are to be governed by the Rules and Regulations applicable to the employees of the University."" 8 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025

14. Referring the aforesaid, the counsel appearing before the Court has admitted the legal position that ICAR's circular has not been adopted by the Board of Management of the university. He has further placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Shiv Kumar Singh versus State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2011 SCC OnLine All 2369 and has referred paragraph no. 11 of the aforesaid judgment, which is extracted as under:- "11. It is settled law that if a Statute provides to do a thing in a particular manner then that thing has to be done in that very manner. In case the petitioner was not having requisite qualification as provided under the Statute or in the advertisement, certainly it would have been a case where the petitioner could be held ineligible for appointment. But here the case is different, the petitioner possess essential qualification as provided under the relevant Statute of the University and the advertisement inviting the application for the appointment on the aforesaid post of Assistant Professor. The qualification prescribed by I.C.A.R. may be there but unless it is inserted in the Statute of the University, that can have no binding force. In the event of non insertion of the said qualification in the statute, the I.C.A.R. may take action against the University (if it is so permissible) but unless the alleged instruction of 1.C.A.R. of the year 2003 (which has not even been brought on record), is inserted in the Statute, that will not vitiate the selection in question and the petitioner's right to continue on the post would be unaffected, as his selection was made as per prescribed qualification given in the Statute. The view taken by us finds support from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Prof. Chandra Prakash Jha v. Vice Chancellor, Allahabad University, (2000) (2) UPLBEC 1134: (2000 ALJ 1667) where this Court has held as under: "It is settled law that delegated legislation is as binding as the parent legislation unless there is conflict between the two. We do not find any conflict. In fact Section 49(d) and (e) of the Act states that the statutes of the Universities can provide the terms and conditions of service of a person appointed to a post under the University. In our opinion Section 49(d) and (e) includes the power to fix the age of superannuation of the University teachers. Since the age of superannuation has been fixed by Statute 16, it can only be altered by amending the Statute. In the system of administration we have adopted from the British, the executive is subordinate to the legislature. Hence in our opinion the Central Government has no power to issue any executive order abrogating or modifying any provision in the U.P. State University Act or the statutes made thereunder. In our opinion if any direction of the U.G.C. had not been complied with by the University concerned, the U.G.C. can withhold or reduce the financial assistance given to that university, but neither the Central Government nor the U.G.C. has any power to amend the Act or statute. Under Section 50(1) the State Government could amend the first statute made by the State 9 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 Government at any time up to 31.12.1990, and the Executive Council under Section 50(2) can amend the Statute, thereafter. Under Section 50(4) the amendment in the statute has to be submitted to the Chancellor who may assent to it or withhold his assent therefrom or remit it to the Executive Council for further consideration. Hence any amendment to Statute 16.24 changing the age of superannuation of University teachers can only be done in accordance with Section 50 and by the authority mentioned in Section 50. No such amendment can be made by any other authority or, in any other manner. If Sri Upadhyaya's submission is accepted it will logically lead to the result that the Central Government or U.G.C. can issue a direction to the University not to obey or comply with the Act or statutes, and thus by an executive order the University statute (which is a piece of delegated legislation) can be abrogated or modified. We cannot accept such submission.""

15. Referring the aforesaid, he submitted that the qualification if any, prescribed by the ICAR with respect to the qualification of appointment of Scientist or likewise post in the University, would have no bearing at all as the statute of the University would prevail.

16. He further emphasized on the fact that vide order dated 07.10.2016, the then Chancellor of the University, directed the payment of the entire salary together with the allowances, for the entire period of his suspension. Further added that in fact, the inquiry committee has also not reached on unanimous or ultimate conclusion regarding the charges leveled against Mr. Prof. Munna Singh. He submitted that the Board of Management has not considered the fact that it is not the opinion of the Chairman of the Enquiry Committee which matters, but the opinions of the Members of the Committee are also valuable as the two members, as well as the chairman, gave their separate opinions/observations while concluding the inquiry proceeding. Moreso, one of the members has said nothing regarding any irregularity committed by the Vice Chancellor, Professor Munna Singh, but he has observed to this extent only that the eligibility criteria provided in the advertisement, is not in-consonance with the Circular dated 29.03.2011, of the ICAR.

17. Concluding his arguments, he submitted that since the order dated

19.11.2025 and the finding thereof is against the provisions of Act 1958, 10 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

18. On the other hand, Mr. Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-university has vehemently opposed the contentions of aforesaid and submitted that the advertisement no. 5/2014 was published in October 2014 and in compliance thereof, the Selection Committee was constituted, after the resolution of Board of Management, in its 150th meeting and thereafter, a complaint was received by the Chancellor, regarding irregularities committed by the then Vice Chancellor, whereafter, the Principal Secretary to the Chancellor vide letter dated 30.12.2014, issued a direction for putting the meeting of the Board of Management in abeyance which was scheduled for 31.12.2014. He submitted that thereafter a preliminary inquiry was done and subsequently, a three-member committee was constituted, headed by a retired Judge of this Court, who submitted his report on 19.09.2016.

19. Referring the aforesaid report, he submits that one member of the committee, in the conclusion of the report, has observed that whether the charges leveled against the then Vice-Chancellor, namely, Munna Singh, were proven against him or not in the light of the documentary and oral evidences adduced during the enquiry and not beyond that and therefore, he was of firm view that he should not express any opinion on the sanctity of whole selection process, whereas, he pointed out the circular dated

29.03.2011 issued by ICAR regarding it's non-compliance. He also added that each member of enquiry committee had made their separate opinion and the recommendation was, to quash the selection proceedings.

20. He further submitted in-compliance of the aforesaid recommendation, the meeting of the Board of Management of the respondent-university was convened and decision was taken to cancel advertisement nos. 1/2014 and 3/2014, whereas, due to some mistakes, the proceedings of selection, which was done in furtherance of advertisement no. 5/2014 was not cancelled. He also submitted that the decision taken by 11 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 the Board of Management is based on the decision taken by the Enquiry Committee and if the decision in the same stroke was not taken for cancelling the advertisement no. 5/2014, that is merely a fault and that does not give strength to the sanctity of the advertisement or any proceedings held thereof.

21. Adding his arguments, he submitted that once the order was passed by this Court on 03.11.2025, the meeting of the Board of Management of the University was convened and a lawful decision was taken for cancelling the recommendation of the Selection Committee. During the course of his arguments, he submitted that the Circular of ICAR is in fact of 26.04.2012 which fixes the terms and conditions with respect to the qualification for the post of Program Coordinator.

22. Referring the decision taken by the Board of Management, after the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by this Court, he submitted that there is no erroneousness or ambiguity in the decision of the Board and after thoroughly considering the pros and cons of the matter, the Board of Directors has taken decision and therefore, no interference is warranted in the same.

23. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that though, the letter has been received by the State, which was sent by the Secretary, Board of Management of the respondent- university dated 19.11.2025, but the decision is still pending consideration.

24. Upon considering the submission of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the petitioners have assailed the order dated 19.11.2025, by which the Board of Management of the respondent-university, has taken a decision, in- compliance of the order dated 03.11.2025 passed in Writ A No. 12751 of 2025 and on the same day, i.e. on 19/11/2025, the letter was written by Secretary of Board to the State Govt. which is also under challenge.

25. The matter before the Court is to examine the validity of the order dated

19.11.2025. This Court finds that the order dated 19.11.2025 has been 12 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 passed mainly on the ground that the minimum eligibility criteria provided vide circular dated 29.03.2011 issued by the ICAR, has not been followed, rather another eligibility criterion, which has been mentioned in the advertisement, and therefore, the whole selection proceedings has been stated to be unlawful.

26. Further the decision of the enquiry committee constituted by the Chancellor has also been taken into consideration and the same has been accepted, but there is no discussion of any kind over the same, by the Board of Management of the University. In fact, during course of argument, the counsel for the respondent-university himself has submitted that it is the circular of ICAR dated 26.04.2012 which covers the field regarding the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Program Coordinator, whereas, the Board of Management has apparently considered in this regard, the circular dated 29.03.2011, issued by the ICAR, which itself demolishes the decision of the Board of Management of the respondent-university.

27. This Court has also noticed the provisions regarding number and qualification of employees of the University, as is provided under Section 28(r) of Chapter XXI of the Act of 1958, which says that the number of Teachers in each department and their qualification, shall be recommended by the academic council which would be approved by the Board of Management. Admittedly, the 150th meeting of the Board of Management, the agenda no, 10 was considered and discussed and the agenda was approved with respect to the qualification which, in fact, was mentioned in the advertisement for appointment of the post of Program- Coordinator. The aforesaid resolution of the Board of Management has never been revoked or recalled by any competent authority. The circular dated 29.03.2011, rather the circular which is as per the argument of the counsel for the petitioners dated 26.04.2012, which is ought to have been considered, have been ignored by the Board of Management, therefore, there was no question so as to assume by any authority, while publishing the 13 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 advertisement to prescribe the minimum eligibility criteria for appointment of the post of Program Coordinator.

28. So far as the report of the enquiry committee, which is mentioned in the resolution of the Board, by which the advertisement no. 5/2014 has been cancelled, has only been mentioned and there is no discussion that why the Board of Management of the respondent-university is accepting the report of the Enquiry Committee, while coming to the conclusion of canceling the advertisement no. 5/2014.

29. This Court has also noted the contention of counsel for the petitioners that the Enquiry Committee has not unanimously come to the conclusion regarding the charges leveled against the petitioners, to be found proved, though, this all is the subject matter of the Board of Management to be considered.

30. The law is settled in this regard that every order has to stand on its own legs, as is prescribed in the law rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill(supra) and that ratio covers the field of present case as the findings recorded regarding the circular dated 29.03.2011 issued by the ICAR, stated to be applicable regarding eligibility criteria/qualifications, appointment of the Program-Coordinator of K.V.K. of the respondent- university, is nonest, therefore, the whole order is erroneous and ambiguous.

31. Consequently, the resolution dated 19.11.2025 sent by Secretary, Board of Management to the State Government for its approval are hereby quashed.

32. The matter is relegated back to the Board of Management of respondent- university to take, a fresh decision, in light of the aforesaid observations, within period of eight weeks, from the date of this order.

33. The decision shall be taken strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act 1958 as well as the settled propositions of law, up till date.

34. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is hereby 14 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 allowed.

35. Till the decision is taken, no further proceedings with respect to the appointment of the post of Program Coordinator, against which the selection committee has recommended the name of petitioners for appointment, shall be done. December 9, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

8. He further argued that since Mr. Ram Lakhan Singh, the petitioner in the Writ Petition No. 12751 of 2025, was not recommended by the selection committee for appointment, as anyhow the sealed covers are opened, 4 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 wherein, it was found the petitioners were recommended for appointment in furtherance to the advertisement no. 5/2014. The present petitioners, being agrieved with the decision dated 19.11.2025 have instituted the present writ petition.

9. The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the sole and main ground for rejecting the recommendation of the Selection Committee while taking the decision vide impugned order dated 19.11.2025 is that the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualification as is provided under the Circular file No. 1-3/2009AE-1 dated 29.03.2011 issued by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research(hereinafter, referred to as ICAR). He has drawn attention towards the circular dated 29.03.2011 issued by ICAR appended as annexure no. 16 to this writ petition and submitted that, in fact, the aforesaid circular do not have binding effect, so far as the minimum eligibility criteria for the post of Program Coordinator is concerned. In support of his contentions, he has referred Section 28(r) of Chapter 21 of the Act, 1958, which reads as under:- "(r) the number, qualifications, emoluments and other conditions of service (including the age of retirement) of teachers and salaried officers of the University, and the preparation and maintenance of a record of their services and activities;"

10. Referring the aforesaid, he submitted that so far as the number, qualifications and other service conditions of the Teachers and salaried officers of the University is concerned, the provisions prescribes that the number of Teachers in each department and their qualifications shall be as 'recommended by the academic council and approved by the Board of Management.' He submitted that, admittedly, the Board of Management in its 150th meeting, in agenda no. 10, has placed the issue regarding the approval of the qualification criteria for direct recruitment and that too has been approved and in consonance thereof, the advertisement no. 5/2014 was published. He submitted that nothing will be valid against the provisions prescribed under the statute and if the authorities had taken decision that, since the minimum eligibility criterion and the qualification which was 5 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 prescribed in the advertisement no. 5 of 2014, is against the circular of ICAR dated 29.03.2011, wherein, certain qualifications and criteria are prescribed, have not been complied with, the same goes against the provision of statute, therefore, the finding and the decision, taken as such, by the Board of Management itself is unlawful.

11. While buttress his arguments, he submitted that in fact the decision which was taken by the Board of Management after an interim order was passed by this Court on 03.11.2025, in Writ A No. 12751 of 2025, is in fact, do not stand on its own legs, as the finding which is recorded and the reasoning which have been given, are nonest and is against the law, therefore, the whole decision which was taken on 09.11.2025, canceling the recommendation of the Selection Committee, vitiates in the eyes of law. He further added that since the decision with respect to the qualification which was approved in 150th meeting of Board of Management of the respondent- University has been reviewed in the order dated 19.11.2025, thus, the same is also against the settled proposition of law as the Board of Management could not review its own orders. He submitted that in fact the resolution which was passed in 150th meeting of Board of Management of the University has neither been revoked nor cancelled by any competent authority.

12. He has also given strength to his arguments while referring the judgment and order rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill versus Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi - (1978) 1 SCC 40 and has referred paragraph 8 of the abovesaid judgment:- "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] : 6 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older."

13. In addition, the counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the status of ICAR has also been decided in the judgment and order rendered in the case of Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar and Another Versus State of U.P. and Others alongwith other connected writ petitions, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine All 2986, and he has referred paragraph nos. 20, 35 and 49 of the abovesaid judgment, which are extracted as under:- ""20. Sri Ganguli has accepted during the course of his submission that this budget has been kept under a different head and State Government has nothing to do with that budget provided by the Council inasmuch as those appointed and employed on the posts of Scientist or Subject Matter Specialist at the centre (KVK) only as per the MOU and State Government has never provided any matching grant or has directed for framing any rules or regulations to otherwise provide for the service conditions of such employees. Sri Ganguli would also not dispute that Chandra Shekhar Azad Agricultural University has also not made any amendment in its first Statute which has been made applicable to the universities separately to govern the service condition of the employees like Scientist, Subject Matter Specialist and other technical staff or other regular staff working with KVK.

35. Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the other university, namely, Chandra Shekhar Azad University in one connected matter, adopts the arguments advanced by Sri Ganguli with a further addition that judgment in the case of Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey (supra) would not apply as there in that case there was a resolution of the Board of Management of the university concerned taking such staff of the KVK at par with the faculty of university but here there is no such resolution placed before the Court.

49. Now interestingly, Division Bench has also noticed the stand of ICAR filed before the Court by means of a short counter affidavit, vide paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 of the judgment which are reproduced hereunder: "(20) The ICAR has filed a short counter affidavit which also needs to be referred to. According to the short counter affidavit, Krishi Vigyan Kendras are established under the administrative control of a Host Organization which in this case is the University. 7 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 The said short counter affidavit states that the ICAR provides cent percent financial assistance to Krishi Vigyan Kendras under the 'Salary' and 'General' heads of the annual budget and further that the service conditions of the employees of the Krishi Vigyan Kendras are to be governed by the Rules, Regulations and Policies of the respective organization. The ICAR in the said short counter affidavit has clearly stated that the University is the Host Organization and at the time of Memorandum of establishment of Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Understanding was signed between ICAR and the Host Organization according to which all staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras shall be borne on the establishment of the Grantee (Host Organization) only. It also provides that the administrative control over the staff employed under the Scheme, shall vest in the host institution and that placement of the staff in case the project is terminated shall be the sole responsibility of the Host Organization. (21) Para 13 of the short counter affidavit filed by the ICAR, it has been clearly stated that staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras are the employees of the Host Organization and not that of ICAR. Such stipulation is made in the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the ICAR and the University. The short counter affidavit further refers to a Circular of the ICAR dated 17.06.2015 according to which all staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras shall be borne on the establishment of the Host Institution and further that the service conditions including recruitment, appointment etc. of the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendra shall be regulated as per the Rules and Regulations of the Host Institution. In para 16 of the short counter affidavit, it has been stated that as per Circular dated 17.06.2015 issued by the ICAR, the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras are the employees of the respective Host Organizations and in this case, all the employees of Krishi Vigyan Kendras are the employees of th University and their service conditions such as appointment, probation, promotion, disciplinary matters, leave rules and age of superannuation etc. will be governed by the Rules and Regulations of the University. It also mentions that the age of retirement/superannuation is to be decided by the respective Host Organization. Thus, the case of ICAR is that the conditions of service including the age of superannuation will be as per the Rules applicable to the employees of the University and further that the staff working in Krishi Vigyan Kendras are the staff of the Host Organization which in this case is the University. (22) The State Counsel has argued that the petitioners are the employees of Krishi Vigyan Kendras and not that of the University. However, having regard to the stand taken by the ICAR and as per the Memorandum of Understanding entered into ICAR which is Funding Agency and the University, it is the Host Institute under whose control the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras work. As per the said Memorandum of Understanding, so far as the conditions of service of the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras are concerned, the same are to be governed by the Rules and Regulations applicable to the employees of the University."" 8 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025

14. Referring the aforesaid, the counsel appearing before the Court has admitted the legal position that ICAR's circular has not been adopted by the Board of Management of the university. He has further placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Shiv Kumar Singh versus State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2011 SCC OnLine All 2369 and has referred paragraph no. 11 of the aforesaid judgment, which is extracted as under:- "11. It is settled law that if a Statute provides to do a thing in a particular manner then that thing has to be done in that very manner. In case the petitioner was not having requisite qualification as provided under the Statute or in the advertisement, certainly it would have been a case where the petitioner could be held ineligible for appointment. But here the case is different, the petitioner possess essential qualification as provided under the relevant Statute of the University and the advertisement inviting the application for the appointment on the aforesaid post of Assistant Professor. The qualification prescribed by I.C.A.R. may be there but unless it is inserted in the Statute of the University, that can have no binding force. In the event of non insertion of the said qualification in the statute, the I.C.A.R. may take action against the University (if it is so permissible) but unless the alleged instruction of 1.C.A.R. of the year 2003 (which has not even been brought on record), is inserted in the Statute, that will not vitiate the selection in question and the petitioner's right to continue on the post would be unaffected, as his selection was made as per prescribed qualification given in the Statute. The view taken by us finds support from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Prof. Chandra Prakash Jha v. Vice Chancellor, Allahabad University, (2000) (2) UPLBEC 1134: (2000 ALJ 1667) where this Court has held as under: "It is settled law that delegated legislation is as binding as the parent legislation unless there is conflict between the two. We do not find any conflict. In fact Section 49(d) and (e) of the Act states that the statutes of the Universities can provide the terms and conditions of service of a person appointed to a post under the University. In our opinion Section 49(d) and (e) includes the power to fix the age of superannuation of the University teachers. Since the age of superannuation has been fixed by Statute 16, it can only be altered by amending the Statute. In the system of administration we have adopted from the British, the executive is subordinate to the legislature. Hence in our opinion the Central Government has no power to issue any executive order abrogating or modifying any provision in the U.P. State University Act or the statutes made thereunder. In our opinion if any direction of the U.G.C. had not been complied with by the University concerned, the U.G.C. can withhold or reduce the financial assistance given to that university, but neither the Central Government nor the U.G.C. has any power to amend the Act or statute. Under Section 50(1) the State Government could amend the first statute made by the State 9 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 Government at any time up to 31.12.1990, and the Executive Council under Section 50(2) can amend the Statute, thereafter. Under Section 50(4) the amendment in the statute has to be submitted to the Chancellor who may assent to it or withhold his assent therefrom or remit it to the Executive Council for further consideration. Hence any amendment to Statute 16.24 changing the age of superannuation of University teachers can only be done in accordance with Section 50 and by the authority mentioned in Section 50. No such amendment can be made by any other authority or, in any other manner. If Sri Upadhyaya's submission is accepted it will logically lead to the result that the Central Government or U.G.C. can issue a direction to the University not to obey or comply with the Act or statutes, and thus by an executive order the University statute (which is a piece of delegated legislation) can be abrogated or modified. We cannot accept such submission.""

15. Referring the aforesaid, he submitted that the qualification if any, prescribed by the ICAR with respect to the qualification of appointment of Scientist or likewise post in the University, would have no bearing at all as the statute of the University would prevail.

16. He further emphasized on the fact that vide order dated 07.10.2016, the then Chancellor of the University, directed the payment of the entire salary together with the allowances, for the entire period of his suspension. Further added that in fact, the inquiry committee has also not reached on unanimous or ultimate conclusion regarding the charges leveled against Mr. Prof. Munna Singh. He submitted that the Board of Management has not considered the fact that it is not the opinion of the Chairman of the Enquiry Committee which matters, but the opinions of the Members of the Committee are also valuable as the two members, as well as the chairman, gave their separate opinions/observations while concluding the inquiry proceeding. Moreso, one of the members has said nothing regarding any irregularity committed by the Vice Chancellor, Professor Munna Singh, but he has observed to this extent only that the eligibility criteria provided in the advertisement, is not in-consonance with the Circular dated 29.03.2011, of the ICAR.

17. Concluding his arguments, he submitted that since the order dated

19.11.2025 and the finding thereof is against the provisions of Act 1958, 10 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

18. On the other hand, Mr. Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-university has vehemently opposed the contentions of aforesaid and submitted that the advertisement no. 5/2014 was published in October 2014 and in compliance thereof, the Selection Committee was constituted, after the resolution of Board of Management, in its 150th meeting and thereafter, a complaint was received by the Chancellor, regarding irregularities committed by the then Vice Chancellor, whereafter, the Principal Secretary to the Chancellor vide letter dated 30.12.2014, issued a direction for putting the meeting of the Board of Management in abeyance which was scheduled for 31.12.2014. He submitted that thereafter a preliminary inquiry was done and subsequently, a three-member committee was constituted, headed by a retired Judge of this Court, who submitted his report on 19.09.2016.

19. Referring the aforesaid report, he submits that one member of the committee, in the conclusion of the report, has observed that whether the charges leveled against the then Vice-Chancellor, namely, Munna Singh, were proven against him or not in the light of the documentary and oral evidences adduced during the enquiry and not beyond that and therefore, he was of firm view that he should not express any opinion on the sanctity of whole selection process, whereas, he pointed out the circular dated

29.03.2011 issued by ICAR regarding it's non-compliance. He also added that each member of enquiry committee had made their separate opinion and the recommendation was, to quash the selection proceedings.

20. He further submitted in-compliance of the aforesaid recommendation, the meeting of the Board of Management of the respondent-university was convened and decision was taken to cancel advertisement nos. 1/2014 and 3/2014, whereas, due to some mistakes, the proceedings of selection, which was done in furtherance of advertisement no. 5/2014 was not cancelled. He also submitted that the decision taken by 11 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 the Board of Management is based on the decision taken by the Enquiry Committee and if the decision in the same stroke was not taken for cancelling the advertisement no. 5/2014, that is merely a fault and that does not give strength to the sanctity of the advertisement or any proceedings held thereof.

21. Adding his arguments, he submitted that once the order was passed by this Court on 03.11.2025, the meeting of the Board of Management of the University was convened and a lawful decision was taken for cancelling the recommendation of the Selection Committee. During the course of his arguments, he submitted that the Circular of ICAR is in fact of 26.04.2012 which fixes the terms and conditions with respect to the qualification for the post of Program Coordinator.

22. Referring the decision taken by the Board of Management, after the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by this Court, he submitted that there is no erroneousness or ambiguity in the decision of the Board and after thoroughly considering the pros and cons of the matter, the Board of Directors has taken decision and therefore, no interference is warranted in the same.

23. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that though, the letter has been received by the State, which was sent by the Secretary, Board of Management of the respondent- university dated 19.11.2025, but the decision is still pending consideration.

24. Upon considering the submission of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the petitioners have assailed the order dated 19.11.2025, by which the Board of Management of the respondent-university, has taken a decision, in- compliance of the order dated 03.11.2025 passed in Writ A No. 12751 of 2025 and on the same day, i.e. on 19/11/2025, the letter was written by Secretary of Board to the State Govt. which is also under challenge.

25. The matter before the Court is to examine the validity of the order dated

19.11.2025. This Court finds that the order dated 19.11.2025 has been 12 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 passed mainly on the ground that the minimum eligibility criteria provided vide circular dated 29.03.2011 issued by the ICAR, has not been followed, rather another eligibility criterion, which has been mentioned in the advertisement, and therefore, the whole selection proceedings has been stated to be unlawful.

26. Further the decision of the enquiry committee constituted by the Chancellor has also been taken into consideration and the same has been accepted, but there is no discussion of any kind over the same, by the Board of Management of the University. In fact, during course of argument, the counsel for the respondent-university himself has submitted that it is the circular of ICAR dated 26.04.2012 which covers the field regarding the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Program Coordinator, whereas, the Board of Management has apparently considered in this regard, the circular dated 29.03.2011, issued by the ICAR, which itself demolishes the decision of the Board of Management of the respondent-university.

27. This Court has also noticed the provisions regarding number and qualification of employees of the University, as is provided under Section 28(r) of Chapter XXI of the Act of 1958, which says that the number of Teachers in each department and their qualification, shall be recommended by the academic council which would be approved by the Board of Management. Admittedly, the 150th meeting of the Board of Management, the agenda no, 10 was considered and discussed and the agenda was approved with respect to the qualification which, in fact, was mentioned in the advertisement for appointment of the post of Program- Coordinator. The aforesaid resolution of the Board of Management has never been revoked or recalled by any competent authority. The circular dated 29.03.2011, rather the circular which is as per the argument of the counsel for the petitioners dated 26.04.2012, which is ought to have been considered, have been ignored by the Board of Management, therefore, there was no question so as to assume by any authority, while publishing the 13 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 advertisement to prescribe the minimum eligibility criteria for appointment of the post of Program Coordinator.

28. So far as the report of the enquiry committee, which is mentioned in the resolution of the Board, by which the advertisement no. 5/2014 has been cancelled, has only been mentioned and there is no discussion that why the Board of Management of the respondent-university is accepting the report of the Enquiry Committee, while coming to the conclusion of canceling the advertisement no. 5/2014.

29. This Court has also noted the contention of counsel for the petitioners that the Enquiry Committee has not unanimously come to the conclusion regarding the charges leveled against the petitioners, to be found proved, though, this all is the subject matter of the Board of Management to be considered.

30. The law is settled in this regard that every order has to stand on its own legs, as is prescribed in the law rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill(supra) and that ratio covers the field of present case as the findings recorded regarding the circular dated 29.03.2011 issued by the ICAR, stated to be applicable regarding eligibility criteria/qualifications, appointment of the Program-Coordinator of K.V.K. of the respondent- university, is nonest, therefore, the whole order is erroneous and ambiguous.

31. Consequently, the resolution dated 19.11.2025 sent by Secretary, Board of Management to the State Government for its approval are hereby quashed.

32. The matter is relegated back to the Board of Management of respondent- university to take, a fresh decision, in light of the aforesaid observations, within period of eight weeks, from the date of this order.

33. The decision shall be taken strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act 1958 as well as the settled propositions of law, up till date.

34. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is hereby 14 WRIA No. 14077 of 2025 allowed.

35. Till the decision is taken, no further proceedings with respect to the appointment of the post of Program Coordinator, against which the selection committee has recommended the name of petitioners for appointment, shall be done. December 9, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench