RANA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioner, who was working as officiating Registrar of Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, has challenged the order dated 9.12.2002 passed by the Vice-Chancellor, Sampurnanand University. By the said order, the Vice-Chancellor relieved the petitioner from the post of officiating Registrar and directed Gangadhar Panda, Head, Puranatihas to discharge the functions of the Registrar in addition to the duties attached to his post as Professor.

(2.) WE have heard Sri T. P. Singh counsel for the petitioner and Sri W. H. Khan counsel for the newly added respondent Sri Gangadhar Panda, who was impleaded as respondent on his own accord.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel. It is well settled and reasonable that ordinarily the seniormost person should be permitted to officiate on the vacancy. This is reasonable also. Indisputably Sri Panda, who has been posted as Deputy Registrar in Sampurnanand Sanskrit University is senior to the petitioner as per seniority list dated 18th November, 2000. Part II Section of U. P. State University Service (Centralised Service) Rules, 1975 creates a cadre : (1) Registrar, (2) Deputy Registrar, and (3) Assistant Registrar. The petitioner was only an officiating Registrar and hence he has no right to the post. By the impugned order, he has not been relieved from the substantive post of Deputy Registrar. The newly added respondent being senior Deputy Registrar to the petitioner, we see no illegality in the impugned order dated 9.12.2002 passed by the respondent No. 2. It is reasonable as well as equitable that as and when a vacancy occurs in a higher post, ordinarily the senior-most person on the immediately lower post should be allowed to officiate for the time being. Sri T. P. Singh, senior advocate for the petitioner, could not point out violation of any provision of the Service Rules. The petitioner, by means of a supplementary-affidavit, tried to raise a factual controversy that the impugned order was not passed after consultation with the State Government, but by the Vice-Chancellor on his own accord. In support of this, he referred to the affidavit containing the allegation that the petitioner had telephonic conversation with the Officers of the State Government who have contradicted the averments made by the Vice-Chancellor in the impugned order that the State Government has also agreed to the passing of the impugned order. WE do not want to enter into that controversy because that is wholly irrelevant in our view. Even otherwise, the newly added respondent being senior to the petitioner is entitled to officiate on the post of the Registrar.