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


Jawab Hasan v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 20247 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 7376 (23 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. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20247 of 2007

Nawab Hasan


State of U.P. and another

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner had been performing and discharging duties as Lecturer in English at Lakhori Inter College, Lakhori, Moradabad, which is duly recognized institution under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Petitioner has contended that ignoring his seniority, one Rajpal was appointed as Principal of the said institution, and as such there were strained relations with the Management, in this background, petitioner requested to attach him to some other college, so that no untoward incident may take place. Petitioner has contended that on 19.03.2002                                                                                                                                          on the consent of the Management of Lakhori Inter College as well as Authorized Controller of Shankar Bhushan Sharan Inter College, Moradabad, petitioner was attached to  Shankar Bhushan Sharan Inter College, Moradabad, on the condition that during period of attachment , he shallbe paid his salary from Lakhori Inter College. Thereafter, Regional Joint Director of Education  passed an order on 04.07.2003 extending the attachment period on same terms and conditions, until further orders. Petitioner has contended that post of English Lecturer fell vacant at Brij Ratan Arya Kannya Inter College, Moradabad, on account of promotion of English Lecturer as Principal. Petitioner has contended that he applied for his attachment  at the said institution and request was also made by the Administrator of the institution also, in this regard. Petitioner has contended that thereafter, matter was examined on 20.01.2006 and the petitioner was attached to Brij Ratan Arya Kannya Inter College, Moradabad by partially modifying the earlier order of attachment on the same terms and conditions. Thereafter, order has been passed on 12.04.2007 by Joint Director of Education canceling the said attachment and asking the petitioner to go to his parent institution i.e. Lakhori Inter College, Lakhori, Moradabad. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed.

Sri S.M.A. Naqvi, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that circumstances, under which petitioner was attached to another institution has yet not changed, as such revocation of attachment order is illegal.

Learned Standing Counsel,  Sri K.K. Chand, on the other hand contended that there is no provision of attachment as has been sought to be done in the present case, and as attachment was void, as such revocation of the same does not infringe any right of the petitioner.  

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges is to the effect that petitioner claims that vacancy of English Lecturer had occurred at  Brij Ratan Arya Kannya Inter College, Moradabad, and against the same he was sought to be attached/adjusted on account of peculiar circumstances. Thereafter order impugned has been passed by the Joint Director of Education revoking said attachment. After enforcement of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982, any appointment, except as provided for under Section 16, is void. Nowhere under the said Act, there is any provision for filling up of the vacancy by way of attachment /adjustment. Vacancy in question can be filled up by way of recommendation made by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board or as per provisions contained under proviso to  Section 16 of the said Act. Petitioner's claim is not at all covered under any of these two methods. The very attachment/adjustment of petitioner to another institution was totally contrary to the  scheme of selection and appointment as provided under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as well as U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. Petitioner has neither been recommended by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, nor the powers vested under Regulations 55 to 62 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 have been exercised, nor the petitioner is retrenched employee, as such in this background, attachment/adjustment of petitioner was dehors the statutory Rules. There is no merit in the writ petition. In fact impugned oder passed advances of cause of justice, and any interference with the same would amount to restoration of illegal order.

Consequently, writ petition lacks substance and the same is dismissed.      




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.