Allahabad High Court
Satish Chandra Yadav vs The State Of U.P. Thru The Director ... on 9 January, 2020
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 20 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 3464 of 2013 Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Yadav Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru The Director Deptt.Of Minority & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- N.C. Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Despite notices having been issued to respondent nos. 3 and 5 and as per office report dated 01.07.2019 notices upon respondent nos. 3 and 5 have been sufficiently served, nobody appears on their behalf. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to decide the matter finally even in the absence of respondent nos. 3 and 5.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the notice dated 12.05.2013 along with termination order of April 2011 issued by the Manager of the Madarsa, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as Hindi Teacher in the Madarsa in question.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been appointed as Hindi Teacher on 28.06.2003 by the Committee of Management of the Madarsa which appointment order was duly countersigned by the District Minority Welfare Officer, District Bahraich. A copy of the appointment order has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner continued to work and had also been sent for training by the Madarsa to the District Institute of Education & Training (DIET). The petitioner claims to have been successfully completed the training and thereafter continued to work and was also paid honorarium by the Madarsa. Later, he was issued the impugned notice dated 12.05.2013 from the Madarsa whereby it has been indicated that his service has already been terminated in April 2011 and being aggrieved, he preferred the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned notice indicating the termination of the petitioner since April 2011 reflects patent non-application of mind inasmuch as the petitioner had been sent for training in December 2011 as would be apparent from perusal of the letter dated 21.12.2011, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition, which he successfully completed as per the certificate issued by the DIET, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition, for the period from 27.07.2011 to 10.01.2012. He contends that it is the Madarsa who had sent the petitioner for training and thus the averment in the notice that the services of the petitioner stood terminated in April 2011 reflects patent non-application of mind and validly no credence can be placed upon the same. It is also contended that prior to terminating the services of the petitioner no opportunity of hearing had been given to him and consequently the impugned termination order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly merits to be quashed and set-aside on this ground alone.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the District Minority Welfare Officer while filing the counter affidavit has specifically admitted in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit that no evidence has been produced by the Management of the services of the petitioner having been terminated and accordingly the termination order, if any, cannot be said to be in accordance with law. Thus, it is contended that once the respondent nos. 1 and 2 themselves have admitted the illegality in the termination order consequently the said termination cannot be said to be valid in the eyes of law.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit argues that the Madarsa in question had been registered under the Madarsa Society Registration Act and is recognized by the Minority Welfare Department. It is also admitted that the appointment order of the petitioner dated 28.06.2003 bears the counter signature of the District Minority Welfare Officer. There is also admission in the counter affidavit of the impugned termination order being not in accordance with law.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, what comes out is that the District Minority Welfare Officer i.e. respondent no.2 has himself admitted the illegality in the impugned termination order of the petitioner. Once such admission has been made categorically on behalf of respondent no.2 then it is not understood as to why consequential action has not been taken by respondent no.2 against the Madarsa in question and for continuance of the petitioner in service more particularly when there is a categoric averment made in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit by the District Minority Welfare Officer that the termination order of the petitioner is not in accordance with law.
Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of directing the District Minority Welfare Officer, Shravasti, to look into the claim of the petitioner pertaining to his termination order being bad in the eyes of law keeping in view the specific averment made in counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2.
Let a reasoned and speaking order on the claim of the petitioner be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The consequences of the outcome of the order being passed by the District Minority Welfare Officer in pursuance to the directions of this Court would also be extended to the petitioner.
Order Date :- 9.1.2020 A. Katiyar