Allahabad High Court
Dr. Raina Nivedita Samuel vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 3 March, 2023
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6955 of 2023
Petitioner :- Dr. Raina Nivedita Samuel
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sankalp Narain,Bindeshwari Prashad Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shashi Prakash Rai
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard Shri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sankalp Narain and B.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 3 and Shri Shashi Prakash Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2.
It is argued by Shri V. K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel that the order dated 16.2.2023 passed by the Registrar of the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur as well as consequential orders dated 17.02.2023 and 20.02.2023 issued by the Regional Higher Education Officer, Gorakhpur/respondent no.3 are without jurisdiction. It is argued that the signature of the petitioner was attested on 06.08.2022 by the respondent no.3 and on the basis of the same, petitioner started functioning on the post of Officiating Principal.
It is further argued that institution in question is the minority institution but wholly illegally Registrar of the University passed the order dated 16.02.2023 by which direction was given by him to the Regional Higher Education Officer, Gorakhpur to recall his order by which the signature of the petitioner was attested as Officiating Principal since he was not a senior most teacher.
Pursuant to the aforesaid, a letter was written by the Regional Higher Education Officer dated 17.02.2023 directing the petitioner to handover his charge to the senior most teacher and again by reiterating the same, a letter dated 20.02.2023 was written by him.
It is further argued that since the institution in question is a minority institution hence University authorities has no power to interfere in the same and in this regard he also placed reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manager, Corporate Educational Agency Vs. James Mathew and others reported in (2017) 15 SCC 595. It is further argued that the letters were illegally written by the University to the respondent no.3 directing him to recall the order passed by him by which the signatures of the petitioner was attested. It is argued that all the letters were written in complete violation of principles of natural justice.
On the other hand, it is argued by Shri A.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shashi Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the University that the present writ petition is totally premature since no action has been taken in the matter till date against the petitioner. It is further argued that earlier a letter dated 31.12.2022 was written by the University to the petitioner directing him to submit his reply within a period of one week and submit the same along-with the necessary evidence but till date no reply has been filed by him. It is further argued by him that the aforesaid order dated 31.12.2022 was challenged before this Court by the Committee of Management by filing Writ A No.5318 of 2023 which is still pending consideration. It is further argued that the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner will not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
With the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of.
It appears from perusal of the record that the letter written by the Registrar of the University to the respondent no.3 appears to be without jurisdiction. It further appears that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner at any point of time by the respondent no. 2 before or after writing a letter dated 16.02.2023. Since a direction has been given by the respondent no.3 to the petitioner to hand over his charge of post of Officiating Principal, the Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is fully maintainable and could not be dismissed being premature.
It is admitted between the parties that the orders which are under challenged were passed without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Since the orders impugned which are under challenged in the present writ petition were passed without hearing to the petitioner and passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, the same is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, authorities are free to pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law after taken into consideration of all aspect of the matter and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if so advised.
Order Date :- 3.3.2023
Swati
