Akhilesh Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 23590 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:57401
 
Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6302 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Prakash Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Om Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.05.2023 as well as the order dated 05/21.10.2021 passed by the DIOS, Ambedkar Nagar, the opposite party no.4, whereby the appointment granted to the petitioner has been cancelled.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed under dying in harness rules after the death of his father, who was serving with the respondents, on 30.06.2006 and the petitioner joined in pursuance to an order dated 01.08.2010 and is said to be working continuously since then. Subsequently, the salary of the petitioner was stopped mainly on the ground of an order passed by the Committee of Management on 21.10.2021 cancelling the earlier appointment granted to the petitioner on 30.07.2010 mainly on the ground that the petitioner had obtained the said appointment by concealing the fact of appearing and passing in Class XII from two separate places.

3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the law with regard to obtaining two certificates is reasonably well settled. He places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Arvind Prakash Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ A No.5210 of 2020 decided on 25.08.2020 and upheld in Special Appeal Defective No.898 of 2020 decided on 21.10.2020.

4. As the foundation for cancelling the appointment is that the petitioner has obtained two certificates in the same year is contrary to the law laid down in the case of Anand Prakash Dwivedi (supra), as such, the order dated 21.10.2021 and the consequential order dated 25.05.2023 are unsustainable and are quashed. The respondent no.4 is directed to ensure the payment of salary to the petitioner to which he is entitled in accordance with law on month to month basis.

5. The counsel for the respondents states that certain other enquiries are proposed against the petitioner, this court is not going into that question and the respondents would be at liberty to take action in accordance with law.

6. With the said observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.

Order Date :- 28.8.2023

VNP/-