JUDGMENT
M. Katju, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri S.C. Tripathi and learned Standing Counsel.
2. In this case, on 23.5.2000, learned Standing Counsel was granted six weeks time to file counter-affidavit and notice was issued to the respondent No. 3, but no counter-affidavit has been filed so far. We are not inclined to grant any further time to learned Standing Counsel as already sufficient time has been granted to him.
3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27.12.99, Annexure-6 to the writ petition by which her selection by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission as Lecturer in Education has been cancelled by the Director of Higher Education.
4. The petitioner’s academic record is mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the writ petition. The petitioner has done Ph.D., NET and M.Ed. Thus, she was fully qualified for being selected. The U.P. Higher Education Service Commission has selected the petitioner vide Select List, copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition where the petitioner is at Serial No. 17.
5. In our opinion when a person has been selected by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, the Director of Higher Education cannot cancel the selection, as he has no power to sit in appeal over the decision of the Commission. The job of the Director of Higher Education is only to issue placement order of a person who has been selected by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission, vide Section 13(3) of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act.
Section 13 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act states .-
“13. Commendation of the Commission.-(1) The Commission shall, as soon as possible, after the notification of vacancies to it under sub- section (3) of Section 12, hold interview (with or without written examination) of the candidates and send to the Director a list recommending such number of names of candidates found most suitable in cash subject as may be, so far as practicable, twenty-five per cent more than the number of vacancies in that subject. Such names shall be arranged in order of merit shown in the interview, or in the examination and interview if an examination is held.
(2) The list sent by the Commission shall be valid till the receipt of a new list from the Commission.
(3) The Director shall having due regard in the prescribed manner, to the order of preference, if any, indicated by the candidates under the second proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 12, intimate to the management the name of a candidate from the list referred to in Sub-section (1) for being appointed in the vacancy intimated under Sub-section (2) of Section 12.
(4) Where a vacancy occurs due to death, resignation or otherwise during the period of validity of the list referred to in Sub-section (2) and such vacancy has not been notified to the Commission under Sub-section (3) of Section 12, the Director may intimate to the management the name of a candidate from such list for appointment in such vacancy.
(5) The Director shall send a copy of the intimation made under Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) or Sub-section (5) to the candidate concerned.”
6. A perusal of the above provisions shows that it is for the Commission to hold selection and not for the Director for Higher Education. The powers of the Director are limited under the Act. He cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Commission.
7. Hence, the impugned order is illegal as it has been passed without authority by a person who has no jurisdiction to pass it. In our opinion the Director of Higher Education has no power to cancel the selection made by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission. The Director can only make placement order vide Section 13(3). Moreover, it is mentioned in Paragraph 10 of the writ petition that no opportunity of hearing as given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The allegation is also unrebutted and hence has to be treated as correct. It is well settled that any order which has civil consequences can only be passed after giving opportunity for hearing vide State of Orissa v. Binapani Dey, AIR 1967 SC 1267.
8. For the reasons given above this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.12.99, copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition is quashed. The Director of High Education is directed to issued placement order to the petitioner forthwith in accordance with Section 13(3) of the Act.
