Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHRISURESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI & ANOTHER versus D.I.O.S. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shrisuresh Chandra Tripathi & Another v. D.I.O.S. & Another - WRIT - A No. - 18992 of 1988 [2007] RD-AH 18422 (28 November 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 AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18992 of 1988

Shri Suresh Chandra Tripathi & another

Vs.

District Inspector of Schools

and another

&

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13163 of 1992

Shri Suresh Chandra Tripathi & another

Vs.

District Inspector of Schools

and another

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

In the district of Jalaun there is recognized known as Intermediate College,Etraura, District Jalaun. Managing Committee of the said institution in question was superseded on account of interim order passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4138 of 1987 and subsequent to the same District Inspector of Schools had been running and managing the affairs of the institution. Petitioners were appointed through District Inspector of Schools and appointment letter was issued on 07.09.1987 to the petitioners. Said appointments have been approved by the District Inspector of Schools himself by separate order. Petitioners submit that after appointment letter was issued to them they continuously performed and discharged their duties and thereafter order dated 08.08.1988 has been passed canceling the said approval order accorded to the appointment of the petitioners.

On presentation of present writ petition, this Court on 04.10.1988 passed following order which is being quoted below:-

"Issue notice.

Meanwhile the operation of the impugned order dated 08.08.1988 shall remain stayed. However, it is made clear that it will be open to the District Inspector of Schools to pass order afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioners."

Counter affidavit has been filed and stand has been taken that during year 1986-87 various appointments have been made by the then District Inspector of Schools on account of of the same departmental instruction had been issued restraining the authorities concerned to make appointment, in this background it has been contended that action taken is fully justified.

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed disputing the averments mentioned in the counter affidavit and it has been stated that pursuant to order passed by this Court salary has been paid and liberty which has been accorded by this Court same has not been availed by the authority concerned.

During the pendency of the present writ pay scale has been revised but petitioners had not been extended the benefit of revised pay scale on the premises that as writ petition is pending, and said decision would be taken for extending the benefit of revised pay scale after aforesaid writ petition is decided. Questioning the validity of the aforesaid order, petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.13163 of 1992.

Thereafter with the consent of the parties both the writ petitions have been taken up together for final hearing and disposal.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in the present case once approval has been accorded to the appointment of the petitioners and there has been no fraud or representation on the part of the petitioners in the matter of selection and appointment then without providing opportunity of hearing such action is unjustifiable and in the present case this Court while passing interim order dated 04.10.1998 had clearly mentioned that it will be open to the District Inspector of Schools to pass order afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioners and even said step has not been undertaken as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned Standing counsel contended that valid reason has been given in canceling the said approval order accorded to the appointment of the petitioner, as such no interference be made

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which is emerging in the present case qua which there is no dispute that District Inspector of Schools himself had authority to control the institution in question. Thus District Inspector of Schools had been performing and discharging duties in dual capacity one as Management of the institution pursuant to order passed by this Court and other as District Inspector of Schools.

In the present case undisputedly selection proceedings were undertaken and therein petitioners were appointed and approval has been accorded by the District Inspector of Schools but District Inspector of Schools while passing order dated 08.08.1988 has proceeded to mention that said approval was accorded on account of wrong facts and information given, as such approval accorded have been canceled. Nothing has been disclosed by the District Inspector of Schools as to what was the wrong fact and information furnished. In the counter affidavit totally different plea has been raised. Said plea is to the effect that during year 1986-87 various appointments have been made by the then District Inspector of Schools and as such departmental instruction had been issued restraining the authorities concerned to make appointment but most surprisingly alongwith counter affidavit no material has been filed to support said submission, and even date of said order restraining the authorities concerned not to accord approval to the appointments made has been disclosed, in this background no credibility could be attached to the said statement of fact. In the present case once appointment has been made and said appointment has been accorded approval then in totally arbitrary manner order impugned has been passed canceling the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioners and that to without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as such said order cannot be sustained.

This Court had given opportunity to the District Inspector of Schools to pass fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners but no fresh order whatsoever has been passed and 19 years period have elapsed till date and no endeavour has been made to pass fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

In these circumstances and in this background order impugned dated 08.08.1988 is hereby quashed and set aside. Writ petition No. 18992 of 1988 is allowed. As Writ petition No. 18992 of 1988 is allowed as such Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13163 of 1992 is also allowed. The benefit extendable to the petitioners shall be extended within period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

No orders as to cost.

Dated: 28.11.2007

Dhruv


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.