Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHIV KUMAR PANDEY versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shiv Kumar Pandey v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 60136 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 20346 (30 November 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 36

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60136 of 2005

Shiv Kumar pandey

Vs.

State of U.P., and others.

Hon. Pankaj Mithal, J

The petitioner applied for Special B.T.C., Training Course 2004 for appointment as Assistant teacher. He was selected and his name was included in the merit list. After his certificates were duly verified he was directed to submit his joining for training on 11.9.2004 at Prathamik Vidhayalaya Chitapur Auraiya. The petitioner joined practical training and completed the same. He also completed theory training  at  district Institute of Education and training Ajitmal, Auraiya. He took the final examination on 17.7.2005. However before his result for the final examination could be declared, the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training Ajitmal, district Auraiya cancelled his candidature and training by the impugned order dated 16.8.2005.

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing  for the petitioner  has argued that the candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled without issuing any show cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing. The reason for cancellation assigned in the impugned order is also unsustainable under law.

In support of his argument Sri Khare has placed reliance upon the  paragraph 16 of the writ petition wherein it has been specifically stated that the impugned cancellation order has been passed without giving show cause notice or hearing to the petitioner. In the counter affidavit no reply has been given to the above paragraph 16 of the writ petition. In fact, the counter affidavit is silent as to whether any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner or  not. Therefore, apparently the petitioner was not heard before passing the impugned order dated 16.8.2005.

2.

The impugned cancellation order  states that a show cause notice was given but it neither mentions the date of the notice nor the date on which the petitioner was required to appear and show cause. In the absence of the date of the notice and the manner of its service it is highly doubtful that the petitioner was actually given any show cause notice before passing the impugned order.  

In view of the above, it is apparent that the petitioner was not given any notice or any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order dated 16.8.2005. Therefore, the said order has been passed in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice which are applicable to the whole range of  the administrative orders.

It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has obtained his candidature for Special B.T.C. Training by playing fraud, misrepresentation or by concealing the material facts. Therefore, according to the settled principles the petitioner is entitle for a notice and an opportunity of

hearing before cancellation of his candidature.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 16.8.2005 is quashed and the matter  is remanded to the respondent No.4, Principal, District Institute of Education and Training Ajitmal, District Auraiya   for passing a fresh order, if necessary, in accordance with law after affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 shall pass the fresh order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. It is made clear that the court has not expressed any opinion on the merits.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.        

30.11.2006

SKS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.