Allahabad High Court
Smt. Anita Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 26 April, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3034 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Anita Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the show cause notice dated 02.09.2022 whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the appointment granted to the petitioner on 21.09.2011 may not be held to be bad in law.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the show cause notice itself discloses the mind of the authority which has issued the show cause notice. He further argues that the show cause notice is without jurisdiction as the appointment of the petitioners was not under section 16-E of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and prima facie the notice has been issued invoking the powers under section 16(E)(10) of the Act which are not applicable. He further argues that the petitioners are working since 2011 and an approval order was also passed in the year 2017, thus, the show cause notice issued is bad in law. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limted vs. Union of India and other; (2010) 13 SCC 427.
Sri Ran Vijay Singh, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel raises a preliminary objection that a writ petition against the show cause notice is not maintainable and he places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana; (2006) 12 SCC 28 wherein the Supreme Court has laid down the law that normally no interference is required against the show cause notice or a charge-sheet unless the same is without jurisdiction. He further argues that the Act of 1921 is applicable to the appointment of the petitioners in view of the Division Bench judgment in the case of Standard Intermediate College Mau-Aima and others vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 13.08.2019 in Special Appeal No.503 of 2019.
To the said arguments, the counsel for the petitioner argues that the Additional Chief Standing Counsel has cited a judgment which is not applicable because the question raised in the present writ petition was not before the Division Bench and thus, the said judgment is not applicable in the present case.
The observations made by the Supreme Court are well settled that normally no interference is called for against the show cause notice, however, exceptions are well carved out and have been explained in detail by the Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limted (supra).
Considering the said submissions made at the bar, the matter requires consideration.
The respondents may file the counter affidavit within two weeks from today. One week thereafter for the rejoinder affidavit.
List this case on 24.05.2023.
Till the next of listing, no order shall be passed in pursuance to the show cause notice dated 02.09.2022.
Order Date :- 26.4.2023
VNP/-
