Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 52384 (ALL)

C/M ARYA KANYA POST GRADUATE DEGREE COLLEGE HAPUR AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

WRIA/8557/2017 · 2025-05-29

Donadi Ramesh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93384 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8557 of 2017 Petitioner :- C/M Arya Kanya Post Graduate Degree College Hapur And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nand Lal Pandey,Shanti Dhar Dwivedi,Suyash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Amit,Amit Singh,Anwar Mehdi Zaidi,C.S.C.,Krishan Pahal (Elevated),Prateek Rai,R.B. Singh,Sanjeev Singh,Shreshtha Yadav Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition is filed by the Institution questioning the order dated 07.01.2017 passed by the third-respondent. 3. When there are vacancies in the Institution the Committee of Management- petitioner herein have decided to fill up the said posts and accordingly, an advertisement was issued in Dainik Jagran on 22.11.2014 and consequent upon, the interview was fixed on 14.02.2015 and a selection committee has been constituted consisting of Manager of the Committee of the Management i.e. the second- petitioner herein and Vandana Singh- District Employment Officer, Hapur, District Inspect of Schools, Hapur, and Dr. Smriti Dani, Principal, Arya Kanya Post Graduate Degree College, in which 80 candidates have participated in the selection process. Based on the merit the selection committee has prepared the selection list in which respondent no.6 stood at first place and second- respondent have also recommended three other persons. 4. Pursuant to the said selection the selection list was sent to the selection committee and the selection committee has sent the papers to the Committee of Management. As the Committee of Management was disagreed with the selection of the selection committee, therefore, Committee of Management has sent the papers to the third-respondent for cancellation of the selections. The fact remains that the petitioner was disagreed with the proposals of the selection committee only on the ground that some news article reflected in the newspaper subsequent to the selection made and the participants have neither made any complaint nor they have approached the media. When that being the position the respondent ought not to have invoked the Statute 24.6 and disapproved the selection made by the Committee. 5. Considering the said fact this Court has called for the selection list vide order dated 06.03.2019, accordingly the selection list was placed before this Court. On perusal of the selection list, in fact the number of persons have got more marks in interview than the sixth- respondent that itself shows overall performance was taken into consideration, the sixth-respondent got 318 marks and stood first in the selection list. Since the criteria for selection is taken as marks in Class-12 for 30 marks, for computer- 5 marks, work experience- 5 marks, personality- 10 marks and interview- 15 marks. So on verifying the selection list which clearly indicates that marks have been awarded by taking several aspects into consideration. 6. In view of the said circumstances, the Management cannot disagree the selections made by the selection committee without any allegations. In fact, in the instant matter no participant had made any complaint or requested either before the authorities or before the Management- petitioner. In such circumstances, the third-respondent has rightly considered the selections made by the selection committee and passed the impugned order approving the appointment of the sixth-respondent. In fact the petitioner is very much interested in getting the post to be filled and required men to run the Institution. But surprisingly, in the instant case he himself has initiated the selection process and for no reason he himself has got stayed the said selection. 7. Considering the submissions and perusal of the record and also the selection list placed by the learned Standing Counsel, as there is no merits in the writ petition for stalling the selections which was done under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 AdityaG (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad