LAWS(ALL)-2010-1-253

ABDULLAH FAIZ AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (HIGHER EDUCATION) CIVIL SECRETARIAT, LUCKNOW AND OTHERS

Decided On January 29, 2010
Abdullah Faiz and Others Appellant
V/S
State of U.P. Through Its Secretary (Higher Education) Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri P.S. Baghel, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Gautam Baghel, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Pankaj Saxena, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioners were selected for appointment on the post of Lecturer in various subjects in the institution in question, namely, Halim Muslim Post Graduate College at Kanpur, which is stated to be a minority institution. The said institution is affiliated with Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur. The selection of the petitioners was made by a Selection Committee, constituted as per the provisions of section 31(4)(d) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The Committee of Management of the said institution considered the recommendation of the Selection Committee in its meeting dated 13.2.2009, and it resolved to accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee in respect of the appointment of the petitioners.

(2.) The Committee of Management sent relevant papers with regard to the said selection to the Vice-Chancellor of the Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University. The Vice-Chancellor by the communication dated 4.9.2009 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) granted his approval for the appointment of the petitioners, as per the provisions of section 31(11)(a) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The Committee of Management issued appointment letters dated 5.9.2009 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), and the petitioners joined the said institution on 5.9.2009 in pursuance of the said approval of the Vice-Chancellor dated 4.9.2009 and the appointment letters dated 5.9.2009.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioners is that even though they have been performing their duties as Lecturers since 5.9.2009, but their salary have not been paid by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are responsible for the payment of salary to the petitioners.