Appointments of three members of the U P Higher Education Services Commission are illegal, flawed and, accordingly, quashed

Allahabad High Court– Deciding on a writ petition seeking a writ of quo-warranto on the ground that the appointments of the third, fourth and fifth respondents as members of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission are contrary to the statutory provisions contained in Section 4 (2-a) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, the bench of D.Y Chandrachud CJ and Yashwant Varma J, held that the appointments so made were illegal and issued the writ of quo-warranto. The Court noted that the appointments made by the State Government in the case of the third, fourth and fifth respondents, are flawed both for the absence of any fair and transparent procedure as well as on the ground that they failed to fulfill the requirement of clause (g) of sub-section (2-a) of Section 4.

In the instant case, the Advocate General submitted on behalf of the State that the Court can issue a writ of quo- warranto where there has been a breach of any statutory rules and if a possible view has been taken, the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. While submission made on behalf of the petitioners was that there was total absence of any procedure having been followed in making appointments to the Commission which were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

After perusal of the facts and the relevant law, the Court highlighted the fact that the State Government has not published or notified vacancies in the Commission. Nor has it notified at any stage that it was in the process of filling up vacancies in the office of members of the Commission due to which persons who were otherwise eligible under clauses (a) to (g), had no opportunity to be considered for appointment to the Commission. The Court further observed that there also has been no competitive evaluation of the merits of various candidates. Gorakhpur University Aff. College Teacher Assn. v. State of U.P., PIL No. 35375 of 2015, decided on 07.09.2015

 

One comment

  • Avatar

    No way to my comments. The judgment itself is a comment on the way the affairs of the state Govt are being conducted.

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.