Allahabad High Court
Satyendra Kumar Srivastava And ... vs State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief ... on 13 February, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29008 of 2021
Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Srivastava And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Vocational Education Andanr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Dwivedi,Pradeep Chandola
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the orders dated 19.02.2021 and 23.11.2016 passed by Director Training and Employment, Technical Education (U.P.), Directorate Training & Employment (U.P.), Lucknow.
The facts of the case are that petitioners were regularized by orders passed in the year 2005 under the U.P. Regularization of Adhoc Appointment (On Post Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 as amended in the year 2001. The petitioners were qualified for regularization from day one for the post on which they were working i.e. Technical Instructor. It appears that one Jagdish Prasad Verma was not having technical qualification at the time of his initial appointment. A dispute arose with regard to his date of regularization and hence Jagdish Prasad Verma approached this Court by filing Writ Petition no.171 (S/S) of 2017 (Jagdish Prasad Verma Vs. State of U.P.) in which, an interim order was granted by this Court on 05.01.2017. Without any notice or even considering that the qualification of the petitioners are entirely different than that of Jagdish Prasad Verma, the interim order was made applicable to the petitioners also by order dated 22.03.2017 wrongly treating the petitioners to be at par with Jagdish Prasad Verma and similar orders with regard to date of regularization of the petitioners were also passed. The effect of the order of Jagdish Prasad Verma was made upon the petitioners without giving them any opportunity of hearing. The writ petition of Jagdish Prasad Verma was dismissed on 08.01.2021 on the ground that he was not having the minimum qualification at the time of his initial appointment and obtained the same on a much later date in the year 1996. So far as petitioners are concerned, the said dispute was never raised by the department with regard to petitioners, however, wrongly applying the said judgment, petitioners are also now treated to be covered by the judgment of Jagdish Prasad Verma. It is specifically stated that there is no dispute with regard to their minimum qualification from the date of their initial appointment.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said aspect of the matter is not considered in the impugned orders dated 19.02.2021 and 23.11.2016. He further submits that both the orders dated 19.02.2021 and 23.11.2016 are passed ex-parte without giving them opportunity of hearing to explain with regard to their qualifications and other rights.
Learned Standing counsel could not show from the counter affidavit that any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before passing the said two orders.
When the State was taking adverse stand against the petitioners with regard to their qualification or on other grounds, impacting the rights which are already settled way back since 2005, it was incumbent upon the State to give a proper notice and opportunity of hearing to them to explain their case. Without the same, the orders passed are in violation of principles of natural justice.
Hence, the impugned orders dated 19.02.2021 and 23.11.2016 cannot stand and are set aside. It shall be open to the respondents, if they so desire, to pass fresh orders after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed.
.
[Vivek Chaudhary J.]
Order Date :- 13.2.2023
-Amit K-
