Jagdish Prasad vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 3923 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44088 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Birendra Singh
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner undisputedly became the Manager of the Institution and his signatures were attested after the death of the erstwhile Manger Jairam.

One  Mahendra Singh Rajpoot is alleged to be the President of the Committee of Management and he set up a claim that a no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner on 6.9.2011. The same is also alleged to have been ratified by the general body on 25.9.2011.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this alleged no confidence motion was produced before the District Inspector of Schools who rejected the same vide order dated 23.9.2011 copy whereof is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. He further submits that no such meeting took place nor any such resolution was passed and as a matter of fact on the basis of the some forged proceedings the petitioner was sought to be removed which was rejected by the District Inspector of Schools.

It is urged that later on another document was prepared at the level of the office of the District Inspector of Schools photo copy whereof is Annexure 11 to the writ petition.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this document was prepared on 4.10.2011 but it appears that it has been interpolated later on by introducing the first three lines at the top of the document and also changing the date of the order below the signatures of the District Inspector of Schools.

He submits that it appears that Babu Ram is alleged to have been elected as Manager in some proceedings dated 10.10.2011 which was allegedly forwarded by the President on 11.10.2011. As per the aforesaid documents the signatures of Babu Ram are alleged to have been attested on 5.11.2011 by  scoring out the date 4.10.2011.

Later on it appears that the petitioner had approached the District Inspector of Schools who vide order dated 5.5.2012 withdrew the alleged order dated 5.11.2011 and allowed the petitioner to be restored as officiating Manager of the Institution.

The said order was assailed in the Writ Petition No.26349 of 2012 by Babu Ram in which a direction was issued on 25.5.2012 to the District Inspector of Schools to decide the matter again and accordingly the District Inspector of Schools has now proceeded to approve the resolution of no confidence motion against the petitioner dated 6.9.2011 as alleged to have been ratified on 25.9.2011.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said resolution had already been rejected on 23.9.2011 and in the aforesaid circumstances the District Inspector of Schools had no power to review the same which fact has been completely ignored while passing the impugned order dated 8.8.2012.

Learned standing counsel is directed to produce the entire records of this dispute after obtaining it from the District Inspector of Schools, Hamirpur and also get the affidavit of Brijesh Kumar the then District Inspector of Schools filed intimating as to why the order dated 23.9.2011 has not been referred to in the impugned order.

Prima facie in the light of the document dated 5.11.2011 structured as indicated in the photo copy of Annexure 11 to the writ petition and dismissed herein above and the order dated 23.9.2011 as Annexure 7 to the writ petition, the petitioner is entitled for an  interim relief.

Until further orders of this the operation of the order dated 8.8.2012 shall remain stayed. The affidavit as directed and the records shall be produced on 24.9.2012.

Order Date :- 3.9.2012

mna