Allahabad High Court
Rana Pratap vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 17 May, 2022
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4353 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rana Pratap
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Grijesh Tiwari
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel forpetitionerand Sri Grijesh Tiwari, counsel fortherespondents.
This writpetition has been filedpraying for direction to therespondent no. 1, Additional Chief Secretary, Secondary Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow, to pass final order. Inview of the order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the LucknowBench of this Court inWrit A - No.28111 (S/S) of 2018 (Shailendra Dutt Shukla vs. State of U.P and others), which has attained finality with regard to the appointment of respondent no. 5 within the period to be stipulated by this court.
Thepetitioner has filed this writ petitionstating that the order passed inaforesaid writ petition on 28.09.2018 has not been complied by the respondent no. 1 till date and, therefore, he may be directed to comply the same.
The order dated 28.09.2018 passed by Service Single No. 28111 of 2018 has quotedhereinbelow :-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V.K. Singh and Sri Girijesh Tiwari, Advocate.
Office of learned Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Sri Ajay Kumar, learned Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned Advocate has been heard on behalf of the Caveator.
Grievance of the petitioner is that he was granted appointment on the post of Headmaster of a high school, which was duly accorded approval on 31.12.2002. He was working in the institution and has been paid monthly salary month by month. Upon a complaint lodged by one Virendra Tiwari by filing a Public Interest Litigation before the High Court, obtained an order whereby direction was issued to the Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, U.P. Government vide judgment and order dated 21.6.2016. The P.I.L. was disposed of with the following direction:
"In the facts of the present case we dispose of the writ petition directing respondent no.1 to take an appropriate decision in the matter preferably within the period of eight weeks' from the date of production of certified copy of this order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned."
On perusal of the order, it is transpired that it was provided that the order shall be passed after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
The impugned order dated 7.9.2018 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) has been passed by the respondent No.1, wherein the petitioner has not been provided opportunity of hearing. It is specific case of the petitioner that he sought adjournment on the date fixed i.e. 7.9.2018 by filing an application to grant 15 days' time, but he was not allowed the said period by fixing another date of hearing and on the date fixed, the impugned order was passed recording therein that in case the petitioner wants to make his grievances, he can move an application for review/recall of the order and thereafter, order shall be passed.
Assailing the order impugned, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No.1 has passed this order in utter disregard of the direction issued by this Court in the P.I.L. No.28978 of 2016. His further submission is that in spite of specific direction contained in the order dated 21.6.2016, the petitioner has not been provided opportunity of hearing, therefore, the order being violative of principles of natural justice, vitiates in law and is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents, after arguing at length, submitted that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending. In case the Court is satisfied that the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice, then the same be set aside and the matter be remanded for fresh consideration and to pass appropriate order by fixing a specific date in the matter so that the controversy be decided.
After hearing rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record.
On perusal of the order dated 21.6.2016, it is evident on the face of it that there is a specific direction that the respondent No.1 shall take decision in the matter after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. On perusal of the operative portion of the impugned order dated 7.9.2018 contained as Annexure-13 to the writ petition, it is transpired that the respondent No.1 has not provided time to the petitioner as per his request to fix another date for hearing in the matter other than 7.9.2018 and the order was passed on the same date, therefore, it is a well established case that the petitioner has not been provided opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the impugned order.
Accordingly, the impugned order, being violative of principles of natural justice, is hereby set aside.
The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
The respondent No.1 is directed to pass an appropriate order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as per the direction issued in P.I.L. No.28978 of 2016 dated 21.6.2016.
It is however made clear that the parties shall appear before the respondent No.1 on 22.10.2018, on which date, the respondent No.1 shall fix a date for hearing on the matter and on the date fixed, decision in regard to the controversy involved shall be taken by the respondent No.1 within a period of 6 weeks."
Sri Grijesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5 has submitted that the petitioner has no locus to file the present writ petition since he has no personal interest involved in getting the order of writ court complied. He has submitted that the petitioner has filed this writ petition on account of ulterior motives and being AssistantTeacher in the same institution he has grudge againstrespondent no. 5 but he has no locus tomaintain this writ petition which is in the nature of execution proceedings ofthe order of writ court passed by the Lucknow Bench ofthis court.
After considering therival submissions, this court finds that thiswrit petition has been filed with some oblique motive and hence the order dated 01.04.2022 of thiscourt recalled.
The writ petition is dismissed with costs.
Order Date :- 17.5.2022
Rohit
