JAWAD KHALID AND ANOTHER versus D.I.O.S. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Jawad Khalid And Another v. D.I.O.S. And Others - WRIT - A No. 4890 of 1986 [2007] RD-AH 12908 (26 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

Court No. 26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  4890 of 1986

Javed Khalid and others              Versus              D.I.O.S. and others

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran

On two vacancies having occurred on the retirement of two lecturers in the respondent-institution, a request was made by the Committee of Management of the institution to fill up the said vacancies by direct recruitment. The District Inspector of School granted such permission on 26.8.1985 and in pursuance thereof the institution published an advertisement in the local newspaper on 6.10.1985. The petitioners and other candidates applied for such appointment and after interview held on 23.11.1985, the petitioners were declared selected for appointment on such posts vide order dated 7.12.1985. Papers for grant of approval to the appointments of the petitioners were forwarded to the District Inspector of School. By order dated 16.12.1985, approval to the appointments of the petitioner was accorded by the District Inspector of School. By the same order, approval to the appointment of a third person on the post of  Lecturer Physics was denied on the ground that no such permission had been accorded for making such appointment. On the basis of the approval granted by the District Inspector of School, the petitioners continued to work and were paid their salary. Thereafter by means of the impugned order dated 20.2.1986 passed by the District Inspector of School the approval granted on 16.12.1985 was withdrawn. Aggrieved by the said order dated 20.2.1986, this writ petition has been filed.

By means of an interim order dated 17.3.1986 passed by this Court, the operation of the impugned order dated 20.2.1986 was stayed and in pursuance thereof the petitioners are continuing to work as Lecturers.

I have heard Sri G.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the state-respondents and Sri S.A.Shah, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents and have perused the record.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the District Inspector of School had no power to review its own order after having granted approval to the appointment of the petitioners. It has further been submitted that even otherwise the impugned order dated 20.2.1986 has been passed without issuing any notice or giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and as such also the said order is liable to be quashed. On the other hand Sri Shah has submitted that the order of approval had been obtained by fraud as the said posts of Lecturers had to be filled up by promotion and as such an order obtained by fraud and misrepresentation can be withdrawn even without notice to the party.

So far as the submission of Sri Shah is concerned, there is no finding of fraud having been committed by the petitioners and as such his submission that the said order could be withdrawn without notice to the petitioners, does not have force.

It is well established principle of law that once a right has accrued  in favour of a person, the same can be withdrawn only in accordance with law after complying with the principles of natural justice. In the present case there is total denial of principles of natural justice as no notice or opportunity was ever afforded to the petitioners prior to the passing of the impugned order. As such, in my view, the impugned order deserves to be quashed on this ground alone.

Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 20.2.1986 passed by the District Inspector of School is quashed. However, it shall be open to the District Inspector of School to pass fresh order, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

No order as to cost.

dt. 26.7.2007

dps

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

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.