Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHD ZAFRI versus Z.B.S.A.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Mohd Zafri v. Z.B.S.A. - WRIT - A No. 20222 of 1986 [2007] RD-AH 13015 (27 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).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition   No.   20222    of   1986

Mohd. Zaki  .........................................................................    Petitioner


Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari & others..........................          Respondents


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.  No counter affidavit has been filed in the writ petition although the writ petition is pending for the last twenty years.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 11.11.1986 by which the District Basic Education Officer terminated the services of the petitioner taking the view that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher.  Petitioner's case in the writ petition is that  he applied in pursuance of the  advertisement for appointment as Urdu teacher.    After selection  he was appointed by appointment letter dated 20.4.1985.  Petitioner's case is that he immediately joined and was working.  Petitioner's certificates were called to be produced by letters dated   1.6.1985 and 21.8.1986 and the authorities after being satisfied with the correctness of the certificates found the petitioner eligible and permitted the petitioner to continue on his post.   Petitioner's case is that subsequently  an order has been passed on 11.11.1986 terminating the services of the petitioner.  The petitioner's case  is that  before taking  adverse action against the petitioner no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain regarding his qualification.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated details of his educational qualifications in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the writ petition.  Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has passed Post graduation  in Urdu also.  Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents has defended the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer.

I have considered the submissions of counsel for the paties and perused the record.

The petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement has applied and was selected by the respondent and appointment letter dated 20.4.1985 was issued.   It is specific case of the petitioner that twice certificates were called by letters dated 1.6.1985 and 21.8.1986 and after perusal of the certificates of the petitioner, he was allowed  to continue.   Subsequently by order dated 11.11.1986 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner the  services of the petitioner had been terminated.   Copy of termination order has been filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition.  From perusal of the termination order it is clear that the finding has been recorded that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment. In fact the order  substantially  is an order amounting to cancellation of the appointment on the ground that he does not fulfil the eligibility.  It was necessary for the respondents to have appraised the petitioner of the deficiency in his educational qualification for the post in question and only after giving opportunity an adverse decision was required to be taken,  since the decision is not on account  of any conduct of the petitioner subsequent to the appointment but is on the question that the petitioner is not possessing the qualification as mentioned in the order.  Such order could not have been passed without  giving any opportunity.  In this writ petition the conditional interim order  was passed on 11.12.1986.  Learned counsel for the petitioner is not aware   as to whether the petitioner is still continuing  in service or not.   However, in view of the fact that the order was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, the said order cannot be sustained and is  hereby set aside.  It is open to the respondents to pass afresh order after giving opportunity if it is so required.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above.




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 |

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