JAVED AFTAB & ANOTHER versus D.I.O.S. BIJNOR & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Javed Aftab & Another v. D.I.O.S. Bijnor & Others - WRIT - C No. 13762 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 12273 (26 July 2006)

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.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13762 of 2002

Javed Aftab & another                vs.           D.I.O.S. and others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel appearing for Respondents no.1 and 2; Sri Anil Sharma for Respondent no.3 and Sri R.K.Shukla for Respondent no.4. Counter affidavits on behalf of the contesting Respondents no.3 and 4 have been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a specific statement that the petitioners do not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being taken up for hearing at this stage.

By an order dated 12.11.2001 passed by Respondent no.3 the petitioners were held to be disqualified to be retained on the posts of Manager and Assistant Manager of the Committee of Management. As per Clause 7 of Chapter IV of the scheme of administration the petitioners had a right to file an appeal. The petitioners filed an appeal on 4.3.2002 before the District Inspector of Schools, who vide order dated 7.3.2002 held that since the dispute could be referred only to the Regional Committee, hence he would not be competent to pass any order. In the meantime, on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Director of Education on 19.2.2002, the District Inspector of Schools had on 22.2.2002 already attested the signatures of Respondent no.4 as Manager of the institution. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any irregularity or illegality in the aforesaid order. The only submission made is that since the petitioners had represented against their removal to the District Inspector of Schools, the matter should have been referred to the Regional Committee for appropriate decision, hence the attestation of the signatures of Respondent no.4 would not be valid. Such submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not worthy of acceptance. After the removal of the petitioners, the Respondent no.4 had been elected/appointed as Manager, which has also been duly approved by the Joint Director of Education and his signatures attested.

Since the petitioners have already availed the alternative remedy of appeal against the order removing them from their post, which order is not under challenge in this writ petition, I would not be inclined to interfere with the order of removal and in view of the fact that no infirmity has been pointed out with the orders dated 19.2.2002 and 22.2.2002 passed by Joint Director of Education and District Inspector of Schools respectively, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

No order as to cost.

Dt/- July 26, 2006.

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.