Vijay Pratap Singh vs District. Inspector Of Schools ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11718 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Chief Justice's Court Serial No. 312          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ***    SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 731 of 2018 (Arising out of Writ - A No. 40822 of 1994)             Vijay Pratap Singh   .....Appellant       Through :-   Mr. Radha Kant Ojha, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.K. Upadhyay, Advocate         v/s      District Inspector of Schools Allahabad and others   .....Respondents       Through :-   Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Mr. Ghanshyam Dwivedi, learned Standing Counsel           CORAM :  HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE     HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, JUDGE        ORDER     1.        Order dated July 26, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge has been impugned by filing the present intra-court appeal. The order reads : "1. Learned counsel for petitioner could not dispute that dispute raised in present writ petition is squarely covered by Division Bench judgment of this Court in Surendra Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others, 2007(1) ESC 118. 2. In view thereof, no relief can be granted to petitioner. Dismissed accordingly. Interim order, if any, stands vacated." 2.        A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others, 2007(1) ESC 118 was relied upon to dismiss the writ petition. The view expressed in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment was doubted by another Division Bench of this Court in Jahaj Pal v. DIOS and another, 2013(5) ADJ 755 (DB) and the matter was directed to be referred to a Larger Bench. The Larger Bench of this Court vide judgment in Jahaj Pal v. District Inspector of Schools and another, 2019 (3) ADJ 424 (FB) answered the questions raised and held that the Division Bench judgment of Surendra Kumar Srivastava's case (supra) is overruled to the extent as stated in Paragraph Nos. 191 to 199 of the judgment of the Larger Bench. 3.        Considering the aforesaid developments which have taken place during pendency of the present appeal and finding that the facts of the case of the appellant have not been examined by the competent Authority or by this Court, as the writ petition was dismissed relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Surendra Kumar Srivastava's case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, as a consequence order dated May 5, 1994 impugned in the writ petition is also set aside and remit the matter back to the competent Authority to examine the claim of the appellant and decide the same in accordance with law, Rules and Policy applicable for the purpose. 4.        The appeal is disposed of, accordingly.      (J.J. Munir)        Judge       (Rajesh Bindal)  Chief Justice     Allahabad 30.08.2022 Anoop/I. Batabyal     Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No   Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No