9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Misuse and abuse of the court process. 2. Validity of the petitioners' appointments and their subsequent cancellation. 3. Legality of interchanging placements between petitioners. 4. Concealment of material facts by the petitioners. 5. Permissibility of mutual transfers under the relevant Act. 6. Consequences of misleading the court and obtaining interim orders through fraud. 7. Non-impleadment of necessary parties. 8. Imposition of costs and initiation of criminal contempt proceedings. Comprehensive Analysis: 1. Misuse and Abuse of the Court Process: The court noted that the petitioners misused and abused the court process. One petitioner, whose appointment was already canceled by operation of law, managed to join a college of his choice by playing fraud upon the court. 2. Validity of the Petitioners' Appointments and Their Subsequent Cancellation: The petitioners were selected for appointment as Lecturers by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission. However, they did not join their respective colleges and instead requested an interchange of placements. The Director did not approve this request, and the appointments were automatically canceled when the petitioners failed to join within the stipulated time. The court emphasized that there was no requirement for the Director or the college management to inform the petitioners about the cancellation, as it was automatic. 3. Legality of Interchanging Placements Between Petitioners: The court found that the petitioners could not legally interchange their placements. The Director's placement orders were based on the specific requirements of the colleges and the merit of the candidates. The petitioners' attempt to interchange placements was contrary to the provisions of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980. 4. Concealment of Material Facts by the Petitioners: The court noted that the petitioners deliberately concealed material facts, including the fact that one petitioner was already employed as a Lecturer in another college. This concealment misled the court into granting an interim order that allowed the petitioners to interchange their placements. 5. Permissibility of Mutual Transfers Under the Relevant Act: The court examined the provisions of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, and concluded that mutual transfers were not permissible under the Act. The Act and the relevant rules and regulations did not provide for such transfers, and the Director did not have the authority to approve them. 6. Consequences of Misleading the Court and Obtaining Interim Orders Through Fraud: The court emphasized that misleading the court and obtaining interim orders through fraud amounted to criminal contempt. The petitioners' actions obstructed the administration of justice and warranted serious consequences. The court cited several Supreme Court judgments to support its stance that interim relief should not be granted if it amounts to final relief and that misleading the court is a serious offense. 7. Non-Impleadment of Necessary Parties: The court noted that the petitioners failed to implead Harendra Kumar, whose appointment was directly challenged in the petition. This non-impleadment of a necessary party was another ground for dismissing the petition. 8. Imposition of Costs and Initiation of Criminal Contempt Proceedings: The court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on each petitioner, to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Additionally, the court initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the petitioners for deliberately misleading the court and obtaining an interim order through fraud. The petitioners were directed to show cause why they should not be punished for criminal contempt. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, vacated the interim order, and initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the petitioners for their fraudulent actions and deliberate concealment of material facts. The court also imposed costs on the petitioners for their misuse of the court process.
|
