KRISHNA NAND SHUKLA versus DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ALLAHABAD & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 183 · Decided: 06-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
183
KRISHNA NAND SHUKLA
v.
DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ALLAHABAD & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2544-2545 of 2019)
MARCH 06, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Pleadings – Writ petition was filed by the appellant in the
High Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent-
University to pay him salary as Lecturer – Writ petition dismissed
by the High Court on basis of the paragraph 3(h) and 3(i) of the
counter-affidavit and paragraph 6 of the rejoinder – Review
application was also dismissed – On appeal, held: From the records
it appears that along with the writ petition of the appellant another
petition was connected and heard – While deciding the writ petition
of the appellant paragraph 3(h) and 3(i) of the counter-affidavit
and paragraph 6 of another writ petition was referred to – The
judgment of the High Court deciding writ petition of appellant
without referring to the pleadings in the concerned writ petition
cannot be upheld – Thus, judgment and order of the High Court set
aside and matter remitted to the High Court to decide the writ petition
afresh on the basis of the pleadings on the record.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD:  1. The appellant claims ad hoc appointment on the
post of Lecturer, Military Science in a Post Graduate College
Affiliated to the Gorakhpur University. The submission of
appellant is that paragraphs of the counter-affidavit i.e. 3(h) and
3(i) as well as paragraph 6 of the rejoinder-affidavit in the writ
petition which has been referred to and relied by the High Court
for dismissing the writ petition are not present in the counter-
affidavit filed to the writ petition of the appellant and the rejoinder-
affidavit filed by the appellant. [Para 10][187-D]
2.  From the records it appears that along with the Writ
Petition No. 29473 of 1999 filed by the appellant another writ
petition being No.29474 of 1999 was connected and heard. It
appears while deciding writ petition of the appellant the paragraph
[2019] 4 S.C.R. 183
183
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
3(h) and 3(i) of the counter-affidavit and paragraph 6 in Writ
Petition No.29474 of 1999 has been referred to. [Para 13]
[188-H; 189-A]
3. The High Court unless looks into the facts of the
appellant’s case and pleadings made therein the writ petition could
not have been decided. It is relevant to notice that the error
committed by the High Court in deciding the writ petition on
06.10.2015 was brought into the notice of the High Court by filing
detailed review application after withdrawing SLP from this Court
but the review application was dismissed by non-speaking order
without adverting to the specific grounds raised in the review
application. The judgment of the High Court deciding Writ
Petition No.29473 of 1999 without referring to the pleadings in
the writ petition i.e. pleadings in the counter-affidavit and
rejoinder-affidavit, cannot be upheld. [Para 14][189-B, C]
4.  Thus, the ends of justice would be served in setting
aside the judgment and order of the High court dated 06.10.2015
and 09.03.2016 and remitting the matter to the High Court to
decide the writ petition afresh on the basis of the pleadings on
the record.  [Para 15][189-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2544-
2545 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.10.2015 of the  High
Court  of  Judicature at  Allahabad in Writ Petition-A No. 29473 of 1999
and order dated 09.03.2016 in Review Application No. 421500 of 2015.
Vishwajit Singh, Pankaj Singh, Ms. Ridhima Singh, Mrs. Veera
Kaul Singh, Ms. Vijaya Singh (for M/S. Vidhi International), Advs. for
the Appellant.
Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Ajay Kumar Pandey, Sandeep Singh, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals have been filed against judgment of the
Allahabad High Court dated 06.10.2015 dismissing the Writ Petition
No.29473 of 1999 and order dated 09.03.2016 rejecting Review
Application No.421500 of 2015 filed by the appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
185
3. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the
appeals are:
The appellant claims to be appointed on 02.08.1991 by the
Management of Jawaharlal Nehru Smarak Post Graduate College
(Affiliated to Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur. The appellant’s case is
that an advertisement was issued on 22.06.1991 in the newspaper-Hindi
Dainik, Gorakhpur in response to which he applied for the post of
Professor Def
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.