POORAN CHAND versus CHANCELLOR & ORS.

POORAN CHAND versus CHANCELLOR & ORS.

The Chancellor's order rejecting respondent No.4's representation was not in error; because Section 53 provides a mechanism to question appointments to the Chancellor and requires reference within three months of when the issue could first be raised, the respondent's challenge to the appellant’s appointment after more than three years (and first raised before the Chancellor only after promotion in 2007) could not validly impeach the appointment; the High Court erred in quashing the Chancellor's order and in directing reversion or treating the appellant as Lecturer, and therefore the appeals are allowed and the writ petition dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Pooran Chand; Respondent: Chancellor; Respondent No.4: Dr. Jitendra Kumar Rao; Respondent: King George Medical University
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the High Court Dated 12.04.2018 Arising From Writ Petition No.1350(sb) of 2009
Outcome
Appeals allowed; judgment of the High Court dated 12.04.2018 set aside; writ petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Seniority, Appointments, Delay and Laches, Statutory Adjudication Under Section 53 of U.p. Act No.8 of 2002
Service Law Education Law University Law Seniority Appointments Delay and Laches Statutory Adjudication Under Section 53 of U.p. Act No.8 of 2002

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pooran Chand

Appellant

Chancellor

Respondent

Dr. Jitendra Kumar Rao

Respondent No.4

King George Medical University

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the High Court Dated 12.04.2018 Arising From Writ Petition No.1350(sb) of 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a challenge to an appointment under Section 53 of the King George Medical University Act (U.P. Act No.8 of 2002) can be entertained after the statutory period for reference to the Chancellor has elapsed
  2. 2 Whether experience as Senior Research Fellow with WHO could be counted as teaching experience for appointment and seniority
  3. 3 Whether the High Court erred in quashing the Chancellor's order and directing reversion and treating appellant as Lecturer

Ratio Decidendi

The Chancellor's order rejecting respondent No.4's representation was not in error; because Section 53 provides a mechanism to question appointments to the Chancellor and requires reference within three months of when the issue could first be raised, the respondent's challenge to the appellant’s appointment after more than three years (and first raised before the Chancellor only after promotion in 2007) could not validly impeach the appointment; the High Court erred in quashing the Chancellor's order and in directing reversion or treating the appellant as Lecturer, and therefore the appeals are allowed and the writ petition dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; judgment of the High Court dated 12.04.2018 set aside; writ petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Set aside the Division Bench judgment of the High Court dated 12.04.2018
  • Dismiss the writ petition No.1350(SB) of 2009 filed by respondent No.4