Allahabad High Court
Veer Bahadur vs State Of U.P. And Others on 18 December, 2012
Bench: V.K. Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 66202 of 2012
Petitioner :- Veer Bahadur
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- D.K.Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manoj Gautam
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad, through its Secretary, as respondent No.5 in the array of respondents. Sri A.K. Yadav, Advocate, who represents the said Selection Board, per chance, is present in Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to get a copy of writ petition served upon him, during the course of day.
Learned standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Sri Mahesh Gautam, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No. 4.
Sri Awadh Bihari Chaturvedi has moved impleadment Application along with counter affidavit. His impleadment application is being allowed. He is permitted to be impleaded as respondent No. 6 in the array of respondents and the counter affidavit filed on his behalf is directed to be accepted and taken on record.
One month's time is allowed to learned standing counsel as well as Sri A.K.Yadav, Advocate for filing counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by Awadh Bihari Chaturvedi may be filed by the petitioner within the same period.
List this writ petition after one month along with record of writ petition No.61432 of 2012, showing the names of respective counsels in this writ petition as well as in connected writ petition, along with cause title.
It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has been placed under suspension by the Committee of Management of Akhand Inter College, Kabrai, District Mahoba vide order dated 22.09.2012 and the said order has been disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools under Section 16G (7) of U.P. Act No.2 of 1921 vide order dated 21.11.2012, and the said order has not been challenged anywhere. Coupled with this, petitioner submits that totally exparte proceedings have been undertaken and arbitrarily his services have been dispensed with.
This much is accepted by both the parties, the petitioner and respondent No.4 both, that on the resolution passed by the Committee of Management dispensing with the services of petitioner, no order in black and white has been passed under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. Before this Court counsel appearing for the Committee of
Management states that since no order under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 has been passed, the Committee of Management is causing no obstruction in the functioning of petitioner as regular Principal of the institution. The fact of the matter is that once resolution for placing the petitioner under suspension has been disapproved and there is no order passed under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982; in such a situation, the petitioner has got every right to function and receive his salary. In view of this respondents are directed to see and ensure that petitioner is permitted to function as regular Principal of the institution and paid his salary regularly until orders are passed under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. This order shall abide by final judgment to be passed in writ petition No.61432 of 2012.
Pendency of this writ petition will not come in the way of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad in passing order under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.5 of 1982.
Order Date :- 18.12.2012
SRY
