Allahabad High Court
Ram Roop Inre W.P.No.2455 Sers Of 2008 vs Vijay Prakash on 20 February, 2020
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 4 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 363 of 2008 Appellant :- Ram Roop Respondent :- Vijay Prakash and others Counsel for Appellant :- R.N.Gupta,O.P. Srivastava,Ram Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Jyotinjay Verma,R.K.Kushwaha,Sanjay Kumar Singh Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar-II,J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel for appellant and learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3. None has appeared for other respondents, though appeal has been called in revise and names of Sri Sanjay Kumar, R. K. Kushwaha and Jyotinjay Verma, Advocates, are shown in the cause list as counsel for other respondents, hence we proceed to decide this appeal after hearing learned counsel for appellant and the learned Standing Counsel.
2. Petitioner-respondent No.1- Vijay Prakash filed Writ Petition No. 2455 (S/S) of 2008 impleading State of U.P., District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kheri, Village Shiksha Samiti Naubana Block & Tehsil-Nighasan, District Kheri as respondents No. 1 to 4. Two private respondents were also impleaded, i.e. Ram Roop, S/o Meva Lal and Meva Lal as respondents No. 5 and 6.
3. Petitioner-respondent No.1-Vijay Prakash challenged order dated 13.03.2008 passed by Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Lakhimpur Kheri, holding that petitioner-respondent, Vijai Prakash was not found eligible for appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra.
4. We have perused record of writ petition. We find that writ petition was presented on 13.05.2008 and came up before learned Single Judge on 15.05.2008 and on the same day following judgment was passed by learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition observing that the notice to parties No. 4, 5 and 6 is dispensed with. The order also clearly shows that the respondents No. 1 and 2 were represented by learned Standing Counsel and Sri R.K. Kushwaha appeared on behalf of respondent No.3. The judgment dated 15.05.2008 reads as under:
"Heard Sri Sanjai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party no.1 and 2 and Sri. R.K.Kushwaha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3.
Issuance of notice to opposite party no. 4 ,5 and 6 is dispensed with.
The controversy relates to appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier a resolution was passed by the Gram Shiksha Samiti for petitioner's selection but the same was not implemented and in place of the petitioner a decision was taken to appoint the opposite party no.5. In pursuance of the order dated 11.10.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6106 (SS) of 2007, the Basic Education Officer has decided the representation of the petitioner and has recorded a finding that in subsequent selection of 2007 the petitioner cannot be selected on account of age bar. It has been submitted that in the year 2006 when the selection was held the father of the petitioner was not a teacher in the institution and he was transferred to another place. However, no relief was granted in the year 2006. The post in question has been advertised again on 25.06.2007 and the petitioner has exceeded the maximum age.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case it shall be appropriate that the respondents may consider the case of the petitioner for relaxation of age in accordance to law so that he may not be put to suffer on their part.
Subject to above, the writ petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs."
5. When writ petition was filed, appellant was already appointed as Shiksha Mitra and working, hence any order passed on writ petition was likely to affect appellant and could not have been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to him. Hence by not issuing notice, learned Single Judge clearly erred. Therefore, judgment in question without hearing appellant cannot be sustained on this ground alone. Further we find that there is no provision permitting relaxation of age, and in absence of any such provision no such relaxation could have been given, therefore, direction given by learned Single Judge to consider issue of relaxation of age to petitioner-respondent, is also not sustainable.
6. In the result, appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 15.05.2008 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2455 (S/S) of 2008 is set aside. The writ petition shall stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.2.2020 Arvind