Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 26 July, 2022
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 395 of 2022
Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gautam Baghel
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Review / Recall Application No. 276 of 2022
The petitioner, Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, who has appeared in person in the Court today has stated that he does not wishes to press this application.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed as not pressed.
Order on Civil Misc. Modification Application No. 5 of 2022
Heard the petitioner, Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, in person and Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4.
This modification application has been filed by the petitioner praying for modification of the order datd 23.05.2022 passed by this Court in the above noted writ petition. He has submitted that in the order dated 23.05.2022 of this Court the direction of the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar, to accord opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as committee of management before granting approval / disapproval to the termination of service of the petitioner is not in accordance with law since it is Regional Higher Education Officer who is competent to approve / disapprove the termination order of the petitioner. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Writ ? A No. 9908 of 2020, C/M Bundelkhand Mahavidyalaya, Jhansi vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, in suppot of his contention.
Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3, Board of Management of the institution, has vehemently opposed the arguments and has submitted that the judgment of this Court relied upon by the petitioner is regarding First Statutes of Bundelkhand University, 1977 and in the aforesaid statute the Regional Higher Education Officer is authorized to approve / disapprove any disciplinary action of the appointing authority regarding an employee of the institution.
He has further submitted that to the institution of respondent no. 3 the First Statute of University of Kanpur, 1977 apply and in statute 21.02 (3), it is clearly provided that "every decision of the appointing authority referred to in clause (2) shall, before it is communicated to the employee be reported to the District Inspector of Schools and shall not take effect unless it is approved in writing." In sub-clause (4) appeal against such order of District Inspector of Schools is provided before the Regional Deputy Director of Education.
In view of the above, the argument of the petitioner has no merit and is hereby turned down.
Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3, has admitted that in pursuance of the order of this court dated 23.05.2022, the District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Nagar, has already approved the termination of the petitioner. Hence, it is clear that the order has been complied and no modification is required in the same being in accordance with law.
The modification application is misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2022
Rohit
