Allahabad High Court
Shweta Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 16 August, 2021
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9258 of 2021 Petitioner :- Shweta Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Kumar Ojha Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard Shri Saililendu Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashish Kumar Ojha, appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 1st February, 2020, whereby the promotion committee has rejected the case of the petitioner for consideration for promotion on the ground that qualifying service as completed by the petitioner is not in accordance with the rules as applicable.
The petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed by means of an appointment letter dated 23.11.2014 and it is claimed by the petitioner that prior to the said appointment, the petitioner was employed in an Institution known as Gajraj Singh Uchhtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Kumhauna, Baharia, Prayagraj, wherein she was served from 1.4.2013 to 24.11.2014 and discharged her duties on the post of Assistant Teacher.
In sum and substance, the contention of the petitioner is that the services rendered by the petitioner at Gajraj Singh Uchhtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Kumhauna, Baharia, Prayagraj ought to have been considered while considering the eligibility of the petitioner, which has not been done.
The petitioner contends that subsequent to the said order, which is an ex-parte order, the petitioner moved a representation highlighting the discrepancies that occurred on account of not considering the services rendered by the petitioner in the Gajraj Singh Uchhtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Kumhauna, Baharia, Prayagraj. In terms of the said representation, a fresh order was passed on 18.1.2021 to the effect that as a decision has already been taken, no power vests to the respondents to review the said order.
The petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 19 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Rules, 1998 and on the basis of the said Rule he argues that the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered. He further argues that if an opportunity was accorded to the petitioner, the petitioner could have qualified the situation, which has led to passing of the order dated 1.2.2020.
Without going into the merits of the contentions and only on the ground that the Selection Committee has held that he does not have the power to review its own decision coupled with the fact that the order dated 1.2.2020 is an ex-parte order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order dated 1.2.2020 is set aside and the matter is remanded before respondent no. 2 to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said order shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 4 shall also transmit a copy of this order before the respondent no. 2 for its effective compliance.
The writ petition is disposed off in terms of the said order.
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated/accepted as certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 S. Rahman