I Yogesh Kumar Saxena Advocate
Allahabad High Court AFTER MY 38 YEARS OF PRACTICE AT ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT with
the profound bleeding at my heart having the professional ethics and high
standards of morality towards the judicial discipline and standards from my
inspection at Allahabad High Court declare among all my friends and other
citizen of India that most of the JUDGES of the ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT are puppet
in the hands of CORRUPTION as supreme court has rightly observed that the foul
smell is started coming from the functioning of High court and there are
Extraneous considerations for passing the orders by the JUDGES having their SON
or DAUGHTER practicing in the same Court, as they have the greed to boost the
practice by passing the orders or Judgement simply by accepting the brief by
the son of other JUDGES in their court in their favour and Vice Verse in response
to their reciprocal commitments and JUSTICE IS ERODED IN THEIR COURT WITH
IMPUNITY.
Access
to justice is the paramount goal of the judiciary by imparting the solace to
the litigant treating the Advocate representing the cause of the litigant as an
officer of the court, if the cause of imparting justice is required by the
Hon'ble Judges of High Courts to be served and when in doubt or conflict this
goal has priority over possible harm from unskilled Judge having egoistic trend
towards his duties or unethical providers (keep in mind how unethical and
unskilled most of the Judges are as they are resuming their offices at any time
and started dismissing the case , the moment the lawyer is involved in respect
of his responsibility in some other court in the campus of more than one
hundred squire meter of area having 59 courts function at a time and making it
only ONE COURT CALLED AS HIGH COURT). Lawyers use regulation of profession
ethics in representing the Hon'ble Judges as my lord , despite the facts that
most of the Judge are suffering from their carnal desire to promote their sons
and daughter by assigning them as Counsel of different INSTRUMENTALITY of STATE
by providing the patronage from the other respective Judges and vice verse as a
cartel mechanism to restrict trade in legal profession. Straight forwards
Lawyers are not affordable to their dictate but they simply address these
judges as MY LORD just to preserve the Judicial Institution and may not be
available to behave like a Slave under ANGLO SAXON JURISPRUDENCE, which has
been inflicted upon our judicial system by the so called selfish political
power now represented as some time at par with the identity of our great
nation. From 1999 onwards, I became the representative of Allahabad Chapter of
the organizer for the LAWYERS of ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT in the CHIEF JUSTICES
CONFERENCE OF THE WORLD at CMS. I was Appointed AMICUS CURIE since 1986
onwards in different JAIL APPEALS and in most of them were decided with
the applause of the Hon'ble Judges, I offered my services voluntarily to
represent the down trodden class of citizen at the best of my
performance. It was in the year of 2008 the Consortium under the
benevolent leader sri RASMUS TENBERGAN appearing as Chair person to unite the
citizens of different nation eager to make every citizen as world citizen
organized WORLD PARLIAMENTARY EXPERIMENT AT BONN , GERMANY In which i
participated as the representative of MIDDLE EAST ASIA I remain Editor of
ALLAHABAD SELECTED CASES, a journal published by MANAV LAW HOUSE and started
the Law School at my residence to educate young lawyers. sponsored the
Conference on Access to Justice in the 2009's at Singapore of
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF JURISTS attended by Hon'ble Justices Sri
P. Shitha Shivam and Hon'ble Justice Sri Cyric Joshef , both judges of
Supreme Court and i tried to convince them issuing its report which is
access-able in the GOOGLE in the name of YOGESH SAXENA .I was requested to
participate in Public Interest Litigation of Ganga Pollution Mater since
2006-2009, till I Become Member of Bar of the Supreme Court in Sept. 2009 . I
was inducted as Mediator amongst by the Hon’ble Justices and approved by
Hon’ble Justice Markandey Katzu due to
my ability to participates in Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms.
A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety. The
Conference found that access to legal services by low- and moderate-income
persons had not been significantly enhanced in India and the people has the
greed for money and the Judges are not aloof from its lust as seen in the case
of Provident Fund SCAM, Justice Dinakaran matter and in Justice Nirmala
Yadav Case, despite recent technological advances and the previous
decade's experimentation with legal advertising, alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms, national and local legal clinics, lawyer referral and information
services, and a variety of prepaid legal plans. The Conference "strongly
supported the relaxation of current barriers to the involvement of non-attorneys
in the provision of legal assistance and called for careful experimentation
with lay advocacy programs to determine whether and how much such
representation will increase access to the legal system."
JUDICIAL INSTITUTION IN INDIA IS
JUST ON THE VERGE OF ITS COLLAPSE AT HIGH COURTS AS WELL AS IN SUPREME COURT.
THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE LIKE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, FINANCIAL
CORPORATIONS, ZILA PANCHAYAT, BASIC SHIKCHA PARISHAD , HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE
UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN OCCUPIED BY THE INDIVIDUAL GREED AND LUST FOR MONEY AND THE
JUDGES OF HIGH COURTS BY MAKING THE LOBBIES ARE GETTING T
HE ENGAGEMENT OF THEIR SONS WITHIN
NO TIME IN THESE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION AS THEIR STANDING COUNSELS. THERE HAS
BEEN THE AFFILIATIONS AMONG JUDGE TO ENCOURAGE THE SON OF ANOTHER JUDGE IN
THEIR RESPECTIVE COURTS AND VICE VERSA AND AS SUCH THE HIGH COURT WITH THE
APPOINTMENT OF THOSE JUDGES , WHOSE SONS AND DAUGHTERS ARE PRACTICING IN THE
SAME COURT ARE ROAMING IN THE WEALTH. THE BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
ARE PASSING THE WHIMSICAL ORDER JUST TO WRECK THE DIVERGENCES AND THE REST OF
THE ADVOCATES REMAINS AT THE DISADVANTAGEOUS LEVEL. THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES
ARE THE SHELTER HOME OF THE CORRUPT OFFICIALS AND MONEY IS CIRCULATED AMONG THE
JUDGES ND THE ALLOTMENT PROCESS , AWARDS ARE GIVEN TO THE FAVORABLE PERSON, FOR
WHICH THE BRIBE HAS BEEN GIVEN IN SEQUENCES AND THE PRIVILEGE ORIENTATIONS
WITHOUT ANY ACCOUNTABILITY HAS BECOME THE CURSES TO THE PEOPLE AT LARGE BY
ERODING THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE NATION AS THE CORRUPTION HAS MERGED IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POST. I KNOW THAT SEVEN Ex CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA WERE CORRUPT.
MOST OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE ASSUMING THEIR FUNCTIONING ARE HAVING CASTE
AFFILIATIONS AND THE STANDARD OF THE CALIBRE OF THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT
HAS NOW BEEN GONE TO THE LEVEL OF THE NORMAL CLASS 2ND REVENUE OFFICERS , OR
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICERS , WHO ONLY KNOWS HOW TO EARN THE MONEY.
MR. D.N.JOHAR AFTER BEING INDUCTED
FROM PUNJAB AS THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY AGRA HAS
STARTED ERODING THE FOUNDATIONS OF EDUCATIONS INSTITUTION WITH CORRUPTION AND
ISSUED ADVERTISEMENT FOR INDUCTING NEW TEACHERS TO THE STUDENTS HAVING ENGG.
COURSES UNDER SELF FINANCING SCHEME. THIS MAN DESPITE BEING SHOWN THAT THOSE
TEACHERS WORKING FROM LAST 14 YEARS IN THE DIFFERENT FACU
LTY OF SUCH INSTITUTION CAN NOT BE
REPLACED BY OTHER AD HOC REPLACEMENT AND THEIR IS LIEN OF THESE TEACHER FOR
AUTOMATIC EXTENSION IN FURTHERANCE OF STATUTE 11.17 OF SAID UNIVERSITY AND THE
PAY SCALE IS REVISED IN COMPLIANCE OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF AICTE , BUT NOW IN
AVOID TO AVOID EXTENSION OF THEIR TENURE , WHICH WAS AUTOMATICALLY DONE, HE
ISSUED THE ADVERTISEMENT ON THE SAME DATE WHEN THE PROVISION OF STATUTE 11.18
EMPOWER AUTOMATIC EXTENSION TAKEN PLACE . VICE CHANCELLOR IS GUILTY OF CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT. I YOGESH SAXENA FILED PETITION ON BEHALF OF 19 TEACHERS POSTED AS
LECTURERS AND READERS In WRIT PETITION AJAY YADAV AND OTHERS VERSUS VICE
CHANCELLOR AND AS ABLE TO GET THE QUERY BEING ASKED FROM JUSTICE S. P. MALAHOTRA
COURT THAT WHY THE STATUTE ARE NOT FOLLOWED BY VICE CHANCELLOR AND COMPLACENCE
IS NOT MADE OF PREVIOUS JUDGEMENT. COUNSEL UNDERTAKEN NOT TO PROCEED WITH SUCH
ADVERTISEMENT WHICH IS VOID BUT VICE CHANCELLOR , WHO HAD TAKEN ABOUT 5 CAR
ORES , ACCORDING TO MY INFORMATION FROM M CLIENTS, GOT THE SINISTER DESIGN TO
GET THE JUSTICE PURCHASED AT ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN COURT OF JUSTICE S.K.SINGH
AND HUMILIATIONS STARTED BY COURT. I SUCCEEDED TO CONVINCE THE JUDGE FOR TWO
DAYS IN POST LUNCH HOURS, AND CONVINCE JUSTICE S.K.SINGH, HOWEVER STILL AFTER
MY PERSUASIVE INSISTENT NOT TO PASS THE ORDER ON THE DICTUM OF VICE CHANCELLOR
AND MY CLIENT AFTER HEARING THE PROCEEDING OF COURT HAVE NO TRUST IN CORRUPT
JUDGE NAMELY JUSTICE S.K.SINGH , THE JUDGES OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT FOR SOME
EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATION HAS CONCEDED TO THE DICTUM OF MR. D.N.JOHAR AFTER
BEING INDUCTED FROM PUNJAB AS THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR
UNIVERSITY AGRA FOR OBLIQUE MOTIVE AND DESPITE MY ARGUMENTS ON MERIT , NOTHING
CAME ON RECORDS < THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCE BEFORE HIM. THE JUDGE FALSELY SAID
THAT THE JUDGEMENT WAS DICTATED TWO DAYS BEFORE AND IT WILL REMAIN THE SAME.
TRANSFER THESE JUDGES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FROM ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT,WHOSE SON
OR DAUGHTER ARE PRACTICING IN THE SAME COURT. .
REMOVE VICE CHANCELLOR MR. D.N.JOHAR
OF DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY FROM THE POST AS THIS MAN HAS COMMITTED
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AND PURCHASED THE JUDGE FOR SOME CONSIDERATIONS AND DESPITE
MY PROVOCATIONS on 10.10.2012, THAT CORRUPTION SHOULD NOT BE PERPETUATED IN
JUDICIAL INSTITUTION, JUSTICE S.K.SINGH OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT PASSED THE
ORDER ON THE DICTUM OF CORRUPTION. TRANSFER THESE JUDGES
FROM ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, WHOSE
SONS OR DAUGHTER ARE PRACTICING IN THE SAME COURT. MY FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION
OF JUDICIARY HAS NOW BEING STARTED AT LEAST TO SAVE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AND
SUPREME COURT FROM PURCHASABLE JUSTICE IN INDIA. LAWYERS DESIGNATED AS SENIOR
COUNSELS ARE PUPPET IN THE HANDS OF HON'BLE COURT AS DESIGNATION AS SENIOR
COUNSEL IS THE PROOF OF SUCH AFFILIATIONS,WHERE THE VOTES ARE GIVEN BY THESE
CORRUPT JUDGES FOR SUCH DESIGNATIONS. THUS IT IS FIGHT OF COMMON LAWYERS.
Court No. - 29
ReplyDeleteCase :- WRIT - A No. - 20250 of 2012
Petitioner :- Ajay Yadav And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Yogesh Kumar Saxena,H.D.Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Shailendra
AND
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23805 of 2012
Petitioner :- Deepshikha Anand & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- G.K. Singh,V.K. Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Vikram Singh,J.
These are certain writ petitions in which there is an issue of a fresh engagement by the University on the contact basis.
One of the basic argument advanced from the petitioners' side is that without considering the petitioners' claim on merit, respondents can not be permitted to proceed with the fresh engagement process.
Shri Shailendra having instruction on behalf of the Vice-chancellor, being very fair to the cause of the petitioners and to the cause of the University for the better interest of the teaching atmosphere, makes a statement that any fresh engagement process will be proceeded only after considering the individual case of each and every petitioner about their fresh engagement in the light of relevant provisions in this respect.
This appears to the Court also very fair at this stage.
Accordingly, the Court permits the respondents to proceed with the process pursuant to the advertisement after re-consideration of case of each and every petitioner for their fresh engagement and accordingly, to complete the selection process so that one chapter may come to an end.
List this matter in the week commencing 29.10.2012.
Order Date :- 8.10.2012
Sunil Kr. Gupta
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ReplyDeleteCivil Misc. Ad Interim Mandamus Application No. of 2012
( under Chapter XXII Rule 1 Of High Court Rules read with 151 C.P.C.)
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 20250 OF 2012
(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) (Group-A)(D.B)
(DISTRICT – AGRA)
1. Ajay Yadav, son of Sri S.C. Yadav,
Resident of 14, Gopal Kunj (Behind St. John’s College)
District Agra.
2. Dr. Rekha Sharma, D/o Dr. R.G. Sharma,
Resident of 55, New Raja Mandi Colony,
District Agra.
3. Chandan Kumar, son of Dr. K. Chaudhary,
Resident of 4, Teachers Lane, Khandari Campus,
District Agra.
4. Dr. Shalini Sharma, D/o Late Har Swaroop Sharma,
Resident of 306, Shivalik Residency, Lawyers Colony,
District Agra.
5. Mukesh Baghel, son of Sri Babu Lal Baghel,
Resident of 51/212D/3, K.B. Nagar, Kheria Mod,
District Agra.
6. Ajeet Singh, son of Sri Horam Singh,
Resident of Jawahar Nagar, Khandari Crossing, Agra,
District Agra.
7. Diwakar Tiwari, son of Sri R.S. Tiwari,
Resident of 12, Anupam Green, Sikandra,
District Agra.
8. Rajesh Lavania, son of Sri Geeta Ram Lavania,
Resident of A-8, Rahul Vihar, Shamshabad Road,
Rajpur, District Agra.
9. Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, son of Sri Jaswant Singh,
Resident of 11, Teachers Cottage (Near Padam Chand)
Khandari, District Agra.
10. Rohini Singh, D/o Sri D.S. Pal,
Resident of Institute of Engineering & Technology,
Khandari Campus, District Agra.
11. Piyush Chaudhary, son of Sri K.L. Chaudhary,
Resident of I.E.T. Khandari Campus, Agra,
District Agra.
12. Pushpendra Singh, son of Sri Charan Singh,
Resident of I.E.T. Khandari Campus, Agra,
District Agra.
13. Dheeraj Singh, son of Sri Ahibaran Singh,
Resident of I.E.T. Khandari Campus, Agra,
District Agra.
14. Vipin Kumar, son of Sri Ram Deen,
Resident of House No. 10, Neeraj Nagar,
Ashopa Hospital, Agra, District Agra.
15. Alok Katiyar, son of Sri Tej Singh Katiyar,
Resident of Anupam Green (Near Harish Nagar),
Sikandra, District Agra.
16. Subodh Sharma, son of Sri S.D. Sharma,
Resident of 94, Jagannathpuri, Mathura,
District Mathura.
17. Ashutosh Dwivedi, son of Sri Ramadhar Dwivedi,
Resident of L-4, Gopal Kunj, B.M. Khan Road, Agra,
District Agra.
18. Raj Kumar Yadav, son of Sri Gaya Prasad,
Resident of Quarter No. 8, Teachers Home,
Khandari Campus, Agra, District Agra.
19. Amit Singhal, son of Sri B.P. Singhal,
Resident of Zonal Pumping Station, Naulakha,
Sadar, Agra, District Agra. ----------------------Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Uttar Pradesh, through Secretary,
Department of Higher Education, Govt. of U.P.,
Lucknow.
2. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra
Through its Registrar.
3. Vice-Chancellor,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra. -----------------Respondents
5. That the deponent is the petitioner no. 1 and he has been authorized on behalf of other petitioners to file his affidavit in support of the present writ petition and as such he is conversant to submit the submissions made in the present writ petition and present affidavit. The photo identity proof of the petitioner no. 1 and identification proof are affixed.
ReplyDelete6. That the copy of written synopsis already served upon the counsel for the respondent university on 21.9.2012 and the submissions in respect of non compliance of the following orders have been passed in the present writ petition mentioned therein have been supplied , which are reproduced as under:-
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.
Hon'ble Mahendra Dayal,J.
On prayer made by Shri Shailendra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, the case is directed to be put-up as fresh before the appropriate Bench on 30th April, 2012 so as to enable him to obtain instructions in the matter particularly in regard to Annexure 12 to the Writ Petition appearing at Pages 110-111 of the Paper-Book of the Writ Petition.
Shri Shailendra will further obtain instructions regarding compliance of the order passed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner.
Order Date :- 25.4.2012
That twice the instructions have been sought to be taken in respect of the contentions made in the writ petition and the Counsel for respondent university in spite taken time has deliberately suppressed the fact in respect of the meeting of Executive Council Dated 31.3.2012 granting approval to the proposal of inserting Statutory provision of clause 11. 18 inserted after Statute 11. 17 of Statute of hand book of respondent university.
Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Vikram Singh,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.
On request of Shri Shailendra, learned counsel for the respondents, put up on 07.05.2012 as fresh, in order to enable him to obtain instructions. He has made statement that till the next date of listing, no appointment or selection in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31st March, 2012, which is impugned in this writ petition, shall be made.
Order Date :- 30.4.2012
Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Vikram Singh,J.
Shri Shailendra, learned counsel for the University states that his counter affidavit is under preparation and shall be served on the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is filing a supplementary counter affidavit. In reply to the same, supplementary counter affidavit be filed within three days.
Petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit to all the counter affidavits within three days thereafter.
Put up on 14th May, 2012 in the additional cause list.
Interim order shall continue to operate till the next date of listing.
Shri Shailendra, learned counsel for the respondents states that the undertaking given by him on 30.04.2012 stands extended till the next date of listing.
Order Date :- 7.5.2012
Thus it was on account of the undertaking given by the university Counsel that the further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned Advertisement were stayed by this Hon’ble Court. The information in respect of the 2 questions posed from the instrumentality of the State has not been given as withholding of vital documents relevant to the litigation is fraud.
A. CONTRACTUAL APPOINTMENTS TO TEACHERS IN THE INSTITUTE RUN BY UNIVERSITY WITH RIGHTS TO AUTOMATIC EXTENSION FOR ANOTHER 3/5 YEARS ON COMPLETION OF TENURE
ReplyDelete1. Chapter XI dealing with the qualification and appointment of teachers in the university, wherein statute 11.13 was promulgated to dealt with the qualification and appointment of teachers in affiliated colleges. Under statute 11.15 the provision of statute from statute11.03 to 11.11 (excepting Statute 11.08) shall given mutatis mutandis. The provisions of section 31 in respect of appointment of teachers and under section 49 ( 1) , the U.P. State University Act 1973 Statute may provide in particular, the constitution , power and duties in any matter relating to university. Under section 21 ( XVII ) the executive Council shall regulate and determine other matter concerning to the university as well as institutes, constituent, affiliated and associated colleges in accordance with University act, the statute and the ordinances. The university inserted the Notification No. 2443/ Seventy-2 -2000-2 (85) /97 dated 9.5.2000 in furtherance of notification no. 0214/70-4/2000 – 7 (7)/94 dated 4th Feb. 2000 applicable to the teachers appointed under self financing scheme in the institutes run by the university made applicable to the UNIVERSITY, ( See Coma ) at par with its affiliated colleges/ affiliated institutions.
B. WITHHOLDING THE VITAL DOCUMENTS BY UNIVERSITY RELEVENT TO THE LITIGATION IS FRAUD
ReplyDelete5. It is submitted that withholding of vital documents relevant to the litigation is fraud as held in case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu ( dead) Versus Jagannath A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 853. The legal Maxims Fraus at Jus nunquam cohabitant Fraud and Jstice never dwell together and Fraus at dololus namini patrocinari debent Fraud and Deceit defend or excuse no Man as held in case of Indian Bank versus M/s Satyam Fibres ( India) Pvt. Ltd. Reported in J.T. 1996 ( 7) S.C. 135, United India Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Raljendra Singh and others ( 2000) 3 SCC 581 may be applicable by the conduct of respondent university in adopting Pick and Choose policy as well as Hide and Seek in over all circumstances of the case. Thus the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court is not precluded to tear the veil and punish the erring authorities for committing deliberate and calculated fraud upon the majesty of this Hon’ble Court.
6. There has been existence of indefeasible rights accrued to the petitioners for continuation of their services till there exist the requirement for the post and particular subject is being taught in the self financing institute rune by the said university. In furtherance of Government orders dated 4.2.2000, 9.5.2000 read with vide Notification No. 5803/ seventy-2-2007-2(85)/97dated 17.1.2006 replaced by Notification No. 5699/ seventy-2-2007-2(85)/97 dated 11.1.2008 (ANNEXURE NO R.A.1b)and further modified in vide notification no. 2218/ seventy -2 -2011-16 (409)/2010 dated 23rd August 2011 duly adopted under Statute 11.18 in continuance of Statute 11.17 made applicable for renewal of existing tenure of teachers, except with prior approval of Executive Council and giving an opportunity to the existing rights of being heard to the getting extensions to their appointment after completion of their initial tenure of employment successfully and their due selections by selection committee duly approved by executive council from time to time. The lien on the post held at par with substantive appointment after facing selection process and having are approved by Executive Committee is the right of the petitioner on the post for renewal of their tenure for another 5 years. However, the said percentage has been enhanced in the statute to 75 to 80 percent of the income as to maintain high standard of teaching skill and competency of teaching staff administrating education to the students incurring expenditure under self finance scheme for Engineering Courses including applied science. Statute No. 11.17 (10), it has been provided that 75 to 80 percent of total income received from tuition fees shall be incurred on the salary of teaching and non-teaching staff of the University or affiliated college or institution. The committee constituted for the aforesaid purposes on 07.10.2009 submitted its report. There exists Government Order dated 09.05.2000 for realization of Contributory Provident Fund, which is also governed by the Statute No. 11.17 (13) of the Statute of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra, but the same have not been done. The committee constituted for the purposes on 07.10.2009 to revise the consolidated salary payable to the Teachers as per norms decided upon by All India Council for Technical Education could not submit its report, even after expiry of one year as such a Writ Petition No. 74731 of 2010 seeking relief to direct the respondents to revise the consolidated salary payable to the petitioners as per norms decided upon by All India Council for Technical Education and to implement the same within period specified. ( Arbitrariness See Onkar Lal Bajaj Versus Union of India (2003) 3 SCC 673 in Distribution of State largesse /Government Contact Clubbing of Unequal)
D. IMPUGNED ADVERTISEMENT FOR FILING UP 102 TOTAL POST IS FRAUD UPON STATUTE AT PAR TO DISPENSE THE SERVICES OF THE TEACHERS
ReplyDelete7. The fresh appointment were offered to be given to the new incumbents on contractual basis for filing total 102 posts again on contractual basis including such 76 posts still occupied by the incumbents working on the said posts by impugned Advertisement dated 31.3.2012 including for such posts, on which petitioners are working till 30.9.2012, which have been already proposed to be renewed with enhanced consolidated pay scale as per the norms prescribed by U.G.C./All India Council for Technical Education in consultation with finance committee and executive council and the information of enhanced consolidated pay scale of post may be forwarded to the State Government. respondent University as the individual benefited out of such recommendations are sought to be ousted by the University by including such person , who were made entitled to continue their an other tenure of 5 years w. e. f. 30. 9.2012 on account of their recommendations by praising the unblemished conduct and sincerity of the teachers vide Annexure C.A.1 and C.A.2 read with Annexure S.A.8 to the supplementary affidavit. The respondent University as the individual teachers and the petitioners were benefited out of such recommendations who were made entitled to continue their an other tenure of 5 years w. e. f. 30. 9.2012 on account of their recommendations by praising the unblemished conduct and sincerity of the teachers vide Annexure C.A.1 and C.A.2 read with Annexure S.A.8 to the supplementary affidavit, are sought to be ousted by the University by including such person of the choice of present Vice Chancellor. That the Secretary of the Technical Education, Government of U.P. vide Letter No. S20-57-2591-EJ/E7/98 dated 6.10.1998 and again by gazette notification dated 5.3.2010 (ANNEXURE S.A.4) directed the Respondent University for implement the recommendation of All India Council of Technical Education to the effect that the admission to the student in the institute run by the University may be given effect. D. K. Yadav Versus M/S JMA Industries Ltd. JT 1993 (3) S.C. 617 on the principles of Jarnail Singh Versus State of Punjab 1986 ATC 208 , AIR 1990 SC 307 and AIR 1991 SC 309
8. It is submitted that the said notification has been purposely concealed by the respondent university purported to be filed after government order dated 23.8.2011 (Annexure C.A. 4). The impression has been conveyed the Statute 11.17 is meant for Private Affiliated College of the University and When the applicability of Statute 11.17 is accepted for university institute and withholding of the Notification dated 27.4.2012 by the respondent university shall be deemed as scandalized the judicial proceeding and defiance of direction given to the respondent university on 25.4.2012 and again on 30. 4. 2012. The respondent No. 3 is guilty of committing the gross disobedience and defiance of the dignity of Hon’ble Court, despite the issuance of notice of civil contempt bearing contempt Application No. 4951 of 2011, which may tantamount to criminal contempt. Rachapudi Subra Rao Versus Advocate General , Andhra Pradesh ( 1981) (2) SCC 577, Advocate General, State Of Bihar Versus M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and Another (1980) (3) SCC 311.
9. That it is submitted that the jurisdiction of the contempt court is not to monitor the implementation of the directions contained, but to enforce compliance of the order flouted by punishing the erring party. This has been repeatedly reiterated that for vindicating the rights vested and accrued from the documents filed , if the petitioner seek the implementation them by tasting the fruit of their success, the remedy lies in the writ jurisdiction and not within the ambit of contempt of Court Act, 1972 as held in J.S. Parihar case A.I.R. 1997 S.C. (1) 113.
ReplyDelete10. The impression has been conveyed the Statute 11.17 is meant for Private Affiliated College of the University and When the applicability of Statute 11.17 is accepted for university institute that beholding of the Notification dated 27. 4. 2012 by the respondent university shall be deemed as scandalized the judicial proceeding and defiance of direction given to the respondent university in pursuance of the orders passed on 25.4.2012 and again on 30. 4. 2012 in the present writ petition and thereby committing the gross disobedience and defiance of the dignity of Hon’ble Court , despite the issuance of notice of Civil contempt bearing contempt Application No. 4951 of 2011, which may tantamount to criminal contempt. Bank of India Versus Vijay Transport 2000 SCC ( 8 ) page 512.
11. There is no precedent in the past that the contract appointment in self finance scheme is advertised in respect of such post, where 76 teachers with the recommendation of concern departments Directors and Head of Departments, the automatic renewal of the previous tenure used to be done as per the decision of executive council on applicability of government orders dated 4.2.2000 and order dated 9.5.2000 duly adopted by the university for their self finance institute like the other institute of the affiliated colleges. Once statute 11.18 after 11.17 is made applicable to the institute run by the university, the impugned advertisement on account of all these flaws will become automatic void ab initio and passed without jurisdiction. (Recruitment Process Ramesh Kumar Versud High Court of Delhi (2010) 3 SCC 104 )
E. IMPUGNED ADVERTISEMENT IS IN VIOLATION OF VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14, 16 AND 21 OF CONSTITUTION AND THUS VIOD
ReplyDelete12. The impugned Advertisement is issued without jurisdiction in contravention of settle principle of transparency in recruitment process in consonance to the requirement of Article 16 of Constitution of India and without disclosing any particulars in respect of nature of such employment, ( Whether Regular Against Permanent vacant Posts in existing vacancy) Or (for the replacement of existing posts already occupied by petitioners and other similarly situated teachers for extraneous purposes to deprive them from their lien and admissible enhanced salary as per recommendations of Executive Council ) , qualification for the posts, emoluments, requisite qualifications, security of such employments, particular description in respect for 76 teachers working on contract basis in the different department, for which the impugned advertisement and corrigendum on internet have been issued to fill up the total 102 posts again on Contract basis.( Lien on the Post Ram Lal Khurana Versus State of Punjab (1989) 4 SCC 99
13. The impugned advertisement issued in a bizarre exercise of acquiring power to dispense with services by inviting fresh applications from prospective applicants on account of fact that this Hon’ble Court in order to eradicate the disparity in the pay scales provided to the petitioners in contraventions to their own norms prescribed in the Hand-Book have yet not implemented the revised pay scale, despite constituting a committee for purposes of having revision in the emoluments in consonance to the respective entitlement of the petitioners for realization of minimum salary at par with the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39000 along with other allowances as is being admissible as per norms of All India Council for Technical Education notified in the form of Statutory Regulation.
14. The appointment of the directors in different department is from outside the subject as the security for employment is not given to the teachers teaching the institute with best caliber and as such the individual having no knowledge in the specialized course is inducted as head of department or Directors of particular specialized field and that to on contractual basis replacement to them from time to time as per the desire of the Respondent University.
F. POLICY GUIDE LINES FRAMED BY UNIVERSITY RE HAVING BINDING EFFECT UNDER DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPLE
ReplyDelete15. Thus on the implementation of policy guide lines by the university, the authorities are bound to adhere with on the settled principles in re Home Secretary Chandigarh Versus Dashjit Singh Grewal JT 1993 ( 4) S.C. 367 lay down an equitable Rule as principle of estoppels’ and Promissory estoppels, Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, Equity and transparency in the public employment, the Respondent University cannot place the petitioners Employment at par with the simple contractual employment, but the regular appointment subject to renewal automatically without advertisement of posts, nor the same could have been constitute as the Contractual employment in the Private Institution but the deemed employment on the regular post in the university against substantive appointments. JT 1993 ( 3) SC 15 and TMA pai Foundation Versus State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC 356.
16. That the correspondence done in respect of the recommendation of finance committee and Executive Council forwarded to the government on 27.4.2012 ( para 17 of Counter Affidavit) have been purposely concealed by the respondent university from this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that the government order dated 9.5.2000 was inserted vide U.P. Government notification No. 2443/ seventy -2-2000-2 ( 85) 97 dated 9.5.2000 and the Government order dated 23.8.2011 is issued in continuance of the existing previous order overriding the effect of statute 11.17 to advertise vacancy and to take interview and Statute 11.18 has been proposed to be implemented by notification Dated 27.4.2012 in furtherance of the recommendation of 5 members committee and meeting conducted on 27.4.2012.
17. That it is submitted that there exists no shortfall in the finance available in respondent university for meeting expenses incurred for payment of revised salary. In fact the respondent university has been running the institute of Engineering and Technology as a profitable institute. The tabular chart having details of income of respondent university for academic sessions 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 are being already filed in writ petition. There has not been any financial constraint upon respondent university in meeting out revised emoluments as per recommendations of their own committee which has been followed by the other universities in respect of their teaching staff under the self financing institution run by said university. It is submitted that the government order dated 9.5.2000 was inserted vide U.P. Government notification No. 2443/ seventy -2-2000-2 ( 85) 97 dated 9.5.2000 and the Government order dated 23.8.2011 is issued in continuance of the existing previous order overriding the effect of statute 11.17 to advertise vacancy and to take interview and Statute 11.18 has been proposed to be implemented by notification Dated 27.4.2012 in furtherance of the recommendation of 5 members committee and meeting conducted on 27.4.2012.
G. ABUSE OF POWER IN CALCULATED MANNER TO EXERCISE THE PERNICIOUS INFLUENCE BEYOND PARTIES TO ACTION
ReplyDelete18. That even those teachers who are identically placed in the institute like petitioners, who could not knock the doors of justice, may not be deprived to the benefit as these teachers are very low paid employee , but on account of arbitrary actions of respondent university, those teachers are affected as that of petitioners , who are lucky to envisaged the protection, there can not be an ugly head to reverse discriminations to the rights of other teachers as the Hon’ble Apex court has duly protected those other similarly situated affected incumbent in re “Indra Pal Yadav Versus Union of India” 1985 SCC ( L&S) 526 and as such the entire advertisement will be quashed to the extent of the existing teachers working in the institute.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007 13 SCC 292 had taken note of the situation and has held “The course adopted by the High Court is to displace on ad hoc arrangement by another ad hoc arrangement which is not at all appropriate for these person who had gained experienced which be more beneficial and useful to the College concerned rather than to appoint persons afresh on ad hoc basis”.
H. RESERVATION POLICY HAS BEEN VIOLATED IN PROVIDING THE RESERVE QUOTA TO S.C. /S.T. and OBC CADRE
ReplyDelete20. That under the University Act, the provision of reservation of SC/ST and O.B.C. were inserted w. e. f academic session of 1994-95 having 21 % for SC and 2 % for ST and 27 % for OBC. N the Impugned Corrigendum amongst four posts of Mathematics, two posts have been reserved for Other Backward Class. Again in two posts of Physics, one post has been reserved for Scheduled Caste. Again in one post of Chemistry, the same is reserved for Other Backward Class. Similarly one post of Engineering Drawing has been reserved for Other Backward Class. Dr. Chakradhar Paswan Versus State of Bihar AIR 1988 SC959 and PGI of Medical Education Versus Faculty Association AIR 1998 Sc 1767.
21. That the rights of petitioners are crucified in respect of his rights accrued in pursuance of interim order passed on 06.04.2010 in his Writ Petition No. 18307 of 2010 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. M.C. Chattopadhyay and others reported in 2004 (12) SCC Page 333, R.S. Garg Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2006 (6) SCC Page 430 as well as Division Bench judgement inre. Smt. Phoolwati Devi Vs. Smt. Asha Jaiswal and others reported in 2009 (2) A.D.J. Page 90 (D.B.) wherein it has been held that the post reserved for S.C./S.T. can not exceed the quota of the reservation and roster prescribed under section 3 (5) of Reservation Act on the principles of guide-lines enunciated in Sabbarwal case.
YOGESH KUMAR SAXENA, Advocate
7. That there are 76 teachers working on contract basis in the different department, for which the impugned advertisement and corrigendum on internet have been issued to fill up the total 102 posts again on contact basis and on the specialize posts on which petitioners are working on contact basis subject to the renewal on such posts since 1999 onward. The period of contract were initially given on the yearly basis, but subsequent to the amendment made under Clause 11.17, the tenure was extended for period of three years w. e. f. date of approval of Executive Council. Thereafter extension by renewal of contract was made automatically on recommendation of individual report as per recommendations made by H.O.D./ Director submitted for the aforesaid purposes.
ReplyDelete8. That amongst these 101 posts advertised in the impugned advertisement indicating vacancy, the services of the petitioners have also been included in the impugned corrigendum. The inclusion of such post already filed up amongst 76 posts so advertised, for which the renewal of their services as per the recommendations of their head of department/ Director of the department in the institute is the fraud committed on power by the respondent university as the compliance of the directions contained in the writ petition may be circumvented.
9. That there is another flow in the impugned Advertisement , which has not been issue as per Statutory requirement of Section 31 ( 10) of the U.P. State university Act and article 14 and 16 of constitution of India for not having being issued by giving the description of the post, eligibility criteria’s, requisite qualifications, pay scale, security of Tenure, age restriction and reservation percentage.
10. That the same is issued as the fraud upon the statute promulgated and Statute 11. 18 of the Statute in furtherance of Notification dated 27.8. 2011 as per approval of the Executive Counsel on 31.3.2012. Thus the undertaken given not to proceed in furtherance of impugned Advertisement was having the automatic extension of the tenure for another 5 years, which has not been done in present case. The same is meant to deprived the petitioner and other teachers from their respective Revised pay Scales and the same is having an effect to circumvent, nullify and prejudiced the fruit of right accrued as per the direction issued by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No. 74731 of 2010 (Ajay Yadav and others Versus State of U.P. and others) by an order dated 22.12.2010 and the directions contained in Contempt Application no. 4951 of 2011, (copy of order was served). The true Copy of the order having adoption of Statute 11.18 having automatic extension of tenure of petitioners and other similarly placed teachers in furtherance of notification dated 23.8.2011 is filed herewith as Annexure A.A. 1 to this Affidavit.
11. That the memorandum were given to newly inducted vice Chancellor acting in the university with malafide exercise with extraneous considerations and oblique motive to his personal vendetta of unethical victimizations to the careers of highly sincere teachers working in the institution by ignoring the recommendations of the Executive Counsel and without their approval adopted the bizarre exercise of acquiring the power to dispense with the service, which is attributed as malice under law.
ReplyDelete12. That the entire teachers teaching in the university through their residential teachers Associations demanded the renewal of tenure as per the precedence by withdrawal of impugned advertisement and to provide them revised salary as per recommendations of High Level Committee constituted by the university. On the failure to concede to such ethical demand, the resignations were submitted by the teachers working on administrative posts. The true copy of such memorandum dated 3.4.2012 and news paper report dated25.4.2012 in respect of tendering resignation by the teachers working on administrative post are filed herewith and marked as Annexure A.A. 2 and 3 to this Affidavit
13. That in view of the aforesaid facts and the undertaking made by the university not to proceed in furtherance of impugned Advertisement, if the petitioners are deprived to get their respective post by having the extension of their tenure as per Statute 11.18 having automatic extension as well as permissible Revised pay Scales and the same is having an effect to circumvent, nullify and prejudiced the fruit of right accrued as per the direction issued by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No. 74731 of 2010 (Ajay Yadav and others Versus State of U.P. and others) by an order dated 22.12.2010 and the directions contained in Contempt Application no. 4951 of 2011, (copy of order was served), the said action is a Criminal contempt upon the respondent no. 2 and 3, for which both of them are liable to be punished by this Hon’ble Court. The true copy of the order dispensing with services of petitioners passed on 29.9.2012 on the instruction of respondent no. 2 by respondent no. 3 is filed herewith as Annexure A.A. 4 to this Affidavit.
14. That in view of the above circumstances of the case, by issuance of necessary directions to the respondent university as the petitioners may get their respective post by having the extension of their tenure this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue ad interim Mandamus necessary directions to the respondent university as the petitioners and other similarity placed teachers in the self finance scheme having being appointed on contact basis for 5years with automatic renewable tenure may get their respective post by having the extension of their tenure for another 5 years w. e. f. 30.4.2012 as per Statute 11.18 having automatic extension as well as permissible Revised pay Scales and the same is having an effect to circumvent, nullify and prejudiced the fruit of successful rights accrued as per the direction issued by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No. 74731 of 2010 (Ajay Yadav and others Versus State of U.P. and others) by an order dated 22.12.2010 and the directions contained in Contempt Application no. 4951 of 2011, (copy of order was served).
ReplyDeleteI, the deponent above named do hereby verify that the contents of para nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 10 of the affidavit are true to my personal knowledge and those the para nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,11, 12 of the affidavit are based on perusal of papers and those the contents of para no. 13 of the affidavit are based on legal advice, which all I believe to be true that no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed in it.
So help me God.
(Deponent)
I, Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Advocate, High Court, Allahabad, do hereby verify and declare that the person making this affidavit and alleging himself to be the deponent is known to me through the perusal of papers produced before me.
(ADVOCATE)
Solemnly affirmed before me on this 30 th day of Sept. , 2012 at about a.m./p.m. by the deponent identified above person.
I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that he has understood the contents of the affidavit, which have read over and explained to him.
OATH COMMISSIONER
Access to justice is the paramount goal of the judiciary by imparting the solace to the litigant treating the Advocate representing the cause of the litigant as an officer of the court, if the cause of imparting justice is required by the Hon'ble Judges of High Courts to be served and when in doubt or conflict this goal has priority over possible harm from unskilled Judge having egoistic trend towards his duties or unethical providers (keep in mind how unethical and unskilled most of the Judges are as they are resuming their offices at any time and started dismissing the case , the moment the lawyer is involved in respect of his responsibility in some other court in the campus of more than one hundred squire meter of area having 59 courts function at a time and making it only ONE COURT CALLED AS HIGH COURT). Lawyers use regulation of profession ethics in representing the Hon'ble Judges as my lord , despite the facts that most of the Judge are suffering from their carnal desire to promote their sons and daughter by assigning them as Counsel of different INSTRUMENTALITY of STATE by providing the patronage from the other respective Judges and vice verse as a cartel mechanism to restrict trade in legal profession. Straight forwards Lawyers are not affordable to their dictate but they simply address these judges as MY LORD just to preserve the Judicial Institution and may not be available to behave like a Slave under ANGLO SAXON JURISPRUDENCE, which has been inflicted upon our judicial system by the so called selfish political power now represented as some time at par with the identity of our great nation. From 1999 onwards,
ReplyDeleteI became the representative of Allahabad Chapter of the organizer for the LAWYERS of ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT in the CHIEF JUSTICES CONFERENCE OF THE WORLD at CMS. I was Appointed AMICUS CURIE since 1986 onwards in different JAIL APPEALS and in most of them were decided with the applause of the Hon'ble Judges, I offered my services voluntarily to represent the down trodden class of citizen at the best of my performance. It was in the year of 2008 the Consortium under the benevolent leader sri RASMUS TENBERGAN appearing as Chair person to unite the citizens of different nation eager to make every citizen as world citizen organized WORLD PARLIAMENTARY EXPERIMENT AT BONN , GERMANY In which i participated as the representative of MIDDLE EAST ASIA I remain Editor of ALLAHABAD SELECTED CASES, a journal published by MANAV LAW HOUSE and started the Law School at my residence to educate young lawyers. sponsored the Conference on Access to Justice in the 2009's at Singapore of INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF JURISTS attended by Hon'ble Justices Sri P. Shitha Shivam and Hon'ble Justice Sri Cyric Joshef , both judges of Supreme Court and i tried to convince them issuing its report which is access-able in the GOOGLE in the name of YOGESH SAXENA .I was requested to participate in Public Interest Litigation of Ganga Pollution Mater since 2006-2009, till I Become Member of Bar of the Supreme Court in Sept. 2009 . I was inducted as Mediator amongst by the Hon’ble Justices and approved by Hon’ble Justice Markandey Katzu due to my ability to participates in Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms. A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety. The Conference found that access to legal services by low- and moderate-income persons had not been significantly enhanced in India and the people has the greed for money and the Judges are not aloof from its lust as seen in the case of Provident Fund SCAM, Justice Dinakaran matter and in Justice Nirmala Yadav Case, despite recent technological advances and the previous decade's experimentation with legal advertising, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, national and local legal clinics, lawyer referral and information services, and a variety of prepaid legal plans. The Conference "strongly supported the relaxation of current barriers to the involvement of non-attorneys in the provision of legal assistance and called for careful experimentation with lay advocacy programs to determine whether and how much such representation will increase access to the legal system."
ReplyDelete