Allahabad High Court
Digvijay Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 14 November, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2906
Author: Manoj Misra
Bench: Manoj Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16734 of 2019 Petitioner :- Digvijay Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Surendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sujeet Kumar,Uma Nath Pandey Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3; Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. Chhaya Gupta for the respondent no.6; and perused the record.
Considering the nature of the order that is being passed as also the ground on which this order is being passed, the learned counsel for the respondent no.6 does not propose to file counter affidavit, therefore, considering that the respondent no.6 is the main contestant and beneficiary of the impugned order, this Court does not consider it necessary to invite counter affidavit from the other respondents or to issue notice to the respondents 4 and 5.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the senior most lecturer in Kundan Model Inter College, Amroha which is a recognized and aided inter college governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 and the rules and regulations framed thereunder.
It appears that the management of the institution did not propose to appoint the petitioner as an officiating principal in the college and therefore the District Inspector of Schools, Amroha, vide order dated 17th October, 2018, issued a direction to the Committee of Management of the institution concerned to allow the petitioner, who is senior most lecturer in the college, to officiate as principal of the institution.
Aggrieved by the order dated 17th October, 2018, the management filed Writ A No.24369 of 2018 before this court by claiming that the petitioner was unfit for being appointed as an officiating principal as various irregularities and illegalities were committed by him in the past which were highlighted in the audit report. It was also urged that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the management.
The writ court, by order dated 29th November, 2018, disposed off Writ A No.24369 of 2018 by providing as follows: "In the facts and circumstances, noticed above, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.2 to accord consideration to the issues that have been raised by the petitioner Committee of Management with regard to continuance of respondent no.3 as the Officiating Principal, by passing a reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Needless to say that an opportunity of hearing would be given to respondent no.3 in the matter. The order impugned shall remain subject to the fresh orders to be passed by the Inspector, in that regard."
Pursuant to the order dated 29th November, 2018, the District Inspector of Schools, Amroha by order dated 20th August, 2019 held the petitioner to be unfit for appointment as an officiating principal on the ground of serious charges against him.
The order dated 20th August, 2019 has been assailed by learned counsel for the petitioner on various grounds, one of them is that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Averment in that regard has been made in paragraph 17 of the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per order dated 29th November, 2018, passed in Writ A No.24369 of 2018, the District Inspector of Schools, Amroha was required to accord opportunity of hearing to the third respondent of the said petition, namely, the petitioner herein, before taking any decision in that regard and since no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel, who has appeared for the sixth respondent, namely, the person in whose favour the order has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Amroha, has very fairly stated that the order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Amroha without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore the District Inspector of Schools, Amroha be required to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He has, however, submitted that since in the interregnum the petitioner has been placed under suspension therefore that aspect be also taken into consideration by the District Inspector of Schools, Amroha while passing fresh order.
Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that since from the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Amroha it does not appear that the petitioner was heard before passing the impugned order and the counsel for the sixth respondent has admitted that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, the matter may be remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools, Amroha to pass fresh order.
In view of the submissions noticed above what transpires is that the District Inspector of Schools, Amroha has passed the impugned order without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner despite specific direction in the order dated 29th November, 2018 that fresh order would be passed after affording opportunity of hearing to the third respondent of that petition, namely, the petitioner herein. Under the circumstances, since the order impugned has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the order affects the rights of the petitioner, the same cannot legally stand. The writ petition is therefore allowed. The order dated 20th August, 2019, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Amroha is set aside. The District Inspector of Schools, Amroha shall pass a fresh order in the light of the order dated 29th November, 2018, passed in Writ A No.24369 of 2018, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of service of certified copy of this order in his office, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It is made clear that while passing fresh order, he shall also take into account the subsequent developments as regards suspension of the petitioner, as claimed by learned counsel for the respondent no.6.
The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Order Date :- 14.11.2019.
Rks.