USHA SINGH Vs. VICECHANCELLOR GORAKHPUR UNIVERSITY GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who claims to be the senior Lecturer in the Department of Education, Sri Agrasen Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Azamgarh, has come up with a prayer to quash the communication dated 8.1.1982 made by the Registrar, Gorakhpur University to respondent No. 3 Smt. Uma Tripathi, another Lecturer of the Department of Education of her college, as contained in Annexure-13 to the writ petition. 1.1. A perusal of the impugned communication shows that in regard to the representation dated 1.9.1981 of respondent No. 3 concerning claim of her seniority vis-a-vis the petitioner, the Vice-Chancellor despite non-expression of the words "in order of merit' by the Selection Committee in its recommendation opined that the mentioning of the names against Serial Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 will mean that it was in order of merit and thus there cannot be any doubt about her seniority since her name figure against serial No. 1.

(2.) Shortly put, the case of the petitioner is that even though she and respondent No. 3, both were appointed on the same day as Lecturers, she having born on 12.7.1950 was always treated as senior to respondent No. 3, who was born on 22.8.1953 by the Gorakhpur University on account of that fact which has also been maintained by the College. To support the aforementioned fact, she has also brought on record (i) the letter/order of the Vice Chancellor. Gorakhpur University, communicated to her through the Principal of the College, as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition,

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, which has been sworn by the Office Assistant of the office of the Registrar of the University, it has been stated, inter alia, that at the time of making its recommendations the Selection Committee had found the respondent No. 3 as most meritorious and her name was accordingly recommended against serial No. 1 whereas the name of the petitioner was recommenced as against serial No. 3 whereas the University was intimated by the Principal of the College that the petitioner was seniormost ; that for determining the seniority the letter (Annexure-9) cannot be relied upon : that the Vice Chancellor has placed reliance on Statute 18,13 and Statute 18.11 is not applicable ; that no opportunity was required to be given by the Vice Chancellor to the petitioner, that the order has not been passed on review ; that the question of seniority has to be decided by the Principal of the College and then only an appeal lies to the Vice Chancellor against the decision of the Principal ; and that since the petitioner has a remedy by way of representation before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act she is not entitled to the reliefs claimed for by her.