Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SHARDA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Sharda v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 40301 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 11956 (13 July 2007)

 

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

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order dated 16/19-6-2006 cancelling the earlier order dated  30.1.2006 issued in his favour has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and,  therefore, deserves to be set aside and in support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 7.2.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 54442 of 2006 in the case of an identically placed Assistant Teacher.

The petitioner claims to have been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Institution on 1.7.1985. When the Institution was brought in the aid-in-grant list salary was not paid to the petitioner. A writ petition was filed but soon thereafter an order dated 15.2.2002 was passed terminating the services of the petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition which was disposed of with a direction to decide the representation. The matter was examined by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board who by his order dated 30.1.2006 found the claim of the petitioner to be correct. By the order dated 16.6.2006 the earlier order dated 30.1.2006 passed in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. In the case of an identically placed Assistant Teacher Smt. Meena a learned Judge of this Court by the judgment dated 7.2.2007 in Writ Petition No. 54442 of 2006 set aside the order dated  16/19-6-2006 on the ground that opportunity had not been granted to the petitioner before passing the order but it was left open to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated  16/19-6-2006 has been passed without giving any opportunity and for this submission he placed reliance upon paragraph 46 of the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has not been stated that any opportunity was given to the petitioner and a perusal of the order also does not indicate that any opportunity was given to the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated  16/19-6-2006 is set aside. It is, however, left open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Dt/-13.7.2007

Sharma40301


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.