Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rajesh Kumar Sharma And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 2348 of 2005 [2007] RD-AH 6356 (6 April 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).


    COURT NO.21

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2348 of 2005

Sri Rajesh Kumar Sharma and others................................Petitioners


State of U.P. and others..................................................Respondents.


Hon.Tarun Agarwala, J.

List has been  revised. The learned counsel for the Committee of Management is not present.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the  learned  Standings Counsel for the respondents.

It transpires that certain inquiry was made by the State Government with regard to the appointment of the petitioners and, on that basis the Secretary, Secondary Education in its meeting held that on 28.12.2004 directed the authorities to take appropriate action on the basis of the inquiry report.

The District Inspector of Schools by an order dated 13.1.2005 has directed the Committee of Management to stop the salary of the petitioner and pass an order of termination of the services of the petitioners within one week from the date of the receipt of the said order. The petitioners, being aggrieved by this order, has filed the present writ petition.

The learned counsel submitted that the order of the District Inspector of Schools was wholly illegal and was passed without any application of mind. Further, no direction could be issued for the stoppage of salary. Even otherwise, the order of termination cannot be passed without complying with the principles of natural justice.

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the appointment of the petitioners was made against the provisions of the Act and, therefore no opportunity of hearing was required to be given.

Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel, I find that the argument raised by the learned Standing Counsel is bereft of merit. The petitioners are working  since 1994 and more than 10 years had elapsed before the issuance of the impugned notices. Consequently, the petitioners' services cannot be terminated without giving any opportunity of hearing and without issuing a show cause notice. Consequently, I direct that the services of the petitioners shall not be dispensed with otherwise than in accordance with law. Further, the procedure prescribed under the Act, Rules and Regulations, are required to be followed. The Committee of Management is required to give an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before taking any action with regard to their services. It is also made clear that the inquiry, if any, shall be completed expeditiously. The direction of the District Inspector of Schools for stoppage of salary cannot be sustained and to that extent the order is set aside.

The writ petition stands partly allowed with the aforesaid observations.




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.