Sheo Prasad Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - archana pandey was appointed in other college when she failed to join in the said college then the district inspector of schools, gorakhpur directed to join on the post of lecturer in hindi in the college which is within 50% quota. 6 was appointed in another college, and when she failed to join in the said college then the district inspector of schools, gorakhpur directed her to join on the post of lecturer in hindi in the institution in question which is within 50% promotional quota.s.p. mehrotra, j.1. the present writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india has been filed by the petitioner, inter-alia, praying for quashing the selection/placement of respondent no. 6 made by the u.p. secondary education services selection board on the post of lecturer in hindi in marwar inter college, gorakhpur, and further for directing the respondent to consider the promotion of the petitioner on the post of lecturer in hindi in the said institution which would fall under 50% promotional quota.2. a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been filed.3. copy of the writ petition was served on the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. however, no counter affidavit appears to have been filed on behalf of the said respondent.4. the office report dated 24.3.2007 shows that the notices, sent by registered post to the respondents nos. 4 and 6, have been served, and the acknowledgement cards have been received back. however no counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 4 or on behalf of respondent no. 6 appears to have been filed.5. case has been taken up in the revised cause-list today.6. sri r.c. dwivedi learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, are present. however, none is present on behalf of the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6.7. a supplementary affidavit, sworn on 22.1.2007, has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner.8. the case of the petitioner is that after the retirement of one gulab lal srivastava, the petitioner is the senior-most teacher in l.t. grade in the aforementioned institution, namely, marwar inter college, gorakhpur, and is eligible for the post of lecturer in hindi, and as such, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted on the post of lecturer in hindi in the said institution as the said post was under the 50% promotional quota.in paragraph 13 of the writ petition, it is stated as follows:13. that it is relevant to point out that the post of lecturer in hindi in the college had never been advertised because the aforesaid vacancy is occurred on 30.6.2003 after retirement of sri s.n. pandey in view of that the question of the selection of smt. archana pandey on the post of lecturer in hindi in the college does not arise. in fact smt. archana pandey was appointed in other college when she failed to join in the said college then the district inspector of schools, gorakhpur directed to join on the post of lecturer in hindi in the college which is within 50% quota.9. thus, according to the petitioner, the aforesaid post of lecturer in hindi in the institution in question was never advertised, and in fact, smt. archana pandey, respondent no. 6 was appointed in another college, and when she failed to join in the said college then the district inspector of schools, gorakhpur directed her to join on the post of lecturer in hindi in the institution in question which is within 50% promotional quota.10. in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, it is, inter-alia, stated that the post of lecturer in hindi in the institution in question fell vacant on 30.6.2003; and that proposal for promotion of gulab lal srivastava, assistant teacher, against the said post was sent by the management; and that as the reservation-quota in the institution in question was not complete, the said gulab lal srivastava could not be given promotion ; and that during the said period, the u.p. secondary education services selection board sent panel to the candidates selected on the post of lecturer in hindi, and in compliance thereof, the authorised controller issued the appointment letter to the respondent no. 6 and permitted her to join.11. as regards paragraph 13 of the writ petition, the counter affidavit in paragraph 12 merely states that the averments made in paragraph 13 of the writ petition are based on facts.12. thus, from the counter affidavit, it is, inter-alia, not clear as to whether the post of lecturer in hindi in the institution in question falls within 50% promotional quota, as to whether any requisition/notification for filling the post of lecturer in hindi in the institution in question by direct recruitment, was sent by the management of the institution in question to the u.p. secondary education services selection board through the district inspector of schools, as to whether any selection for the post of lecturer in hindi in the institution in question was made by the u.p. secondary education services selection board, as to whether the respondent no. 6 was selected on the post of lecturer in hindi in the institution in question, as to whether the respondent no. 6 was in fact directed to join on the post of lecturer in hindi in the institution in question.13. in the absence of relevant material on record, it is difficult to come to definitive conclusions in regard to the various questions indicated above. even otherwise, the said questions involve determination of questions of fact, and the same cannot appropriately be done in writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india.14. in view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:1. the petitioner will make a detailed representation before the joint director of education, 7th region, gorakhpur (respondent no. 2) alongwith a certified copy of this order within one month from today.2. the joint director of education, 7th region, gorakhpur (respondent no. 2) will decide the said representation by a reasoned order giving specific findings in regard to the various questions involved in the matter including those indicated above.3. before taking any decision, the respondent no. 2 will give opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties including the petitioner, the respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 6.4. the respondent no. 2 will decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of representation alongwith certified copy of this order by the petitioner before him.