Allahabad High Court
Anand Kumar And 2 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru ... on 23 May, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:35860
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10347 of 2017
Petitioner :- Anand Kumar And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Revenue Deptt.Civil Sectt.Andors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad Maurya,Devi Prasad Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
1. Heard Sri Devi Prasad maurya, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.03.2017 passed by District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri whereby he has cancelled the selection of the petitioners on the post of Lekhpal.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that an advertisement was issued on 02.07.2015 inviting applications for filling up 231 posts of Lekhpal for district Lakhimpur Kheri. The petitioners who belong to the O.B.C. category applied for the said post, subsequently appeared in the written test and interview. The result of the said selection was declared where the name of the petitioners were indicated as selected candidates and find mention at serial Nos.103, 223 and 224. Subsequent to the said selection, the petitioners were appointed and allotted Tehsil Palia and Nighasan where they submitted their joining on 25.05.2016, 06.05.2016 and 10.05.2016. The petitioners were continuing and discharging their duties on the post of Lekhpal when they were served with an order dated 03.08.2016 restraining them from discharging their duties on the post of Lekhpal.
4. The petitioners have approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ-A No.20485 of 2016, Writ-A No.19764 of 2016 and Writ-A No.20481 of 2016. Subsequently, the impugned order dated 15.03.2017 was passed cancelling the appointment of the petitioners which has been challenged in the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that a perusal of the impugned order would indicate that neither any opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioners nor any reason has been stated for cancelling appointment of the petitioners.
6. This Court has also perused the judgments as cited in the said order and is satisfied that no such direction was given by this Court for cancelling of the said result.
7. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition.
8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
9. Even from the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it could not be shown that the petitioners were either served with the show cause notice or either given an opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the impugned order. A categorical assertion in this regard has been made in paragraph No.15 of the writ petition which has not been denied in the counter affidavit. The only ground taken in the counter affidavit for cancelling the said result is that while filing their online application for the exam, petitioners chose partially deaf under the handicapped category whereas they are suffering from cerebral palsy and, therefore, on account of concealment their appointment has been cancelled.
10. Learned counsel for petitioners has contested the aforesaid facts and submits that under the physically handicapped (O.B.C.) only the option of 'partially deaf' as a sub category was available at the time of filing of online application. Respondents cannot attribute wrong selection of category on petitioners since 'partially deaf' was the sole option available at the time of filing of application form. Even otherwise, the entire exercise was conducted by respondents themselves and petitioners were not involved in the same and no satisfactory reason has been explained by the respondents for cancelling the appointment of the petitioners.
11. Having heard learned counsel for rival parties and gone through the record.
12. It is noticed that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, having been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Undoubtedly, the petitioners have acquired vested right for appointment on the post of Lekhpal and also considering the fact that they have duly appeared in the selection process and after due process of appointment they were appointed by means of order dated 06.05.2016. Admittedly, they have discharged duties on post of Lekhpal before they were restrained by the District Magistrate. This Court is of the considered view that an order snatching away the vested right of the petitioners cannot be passed in violation of principle of nature justice and is therefore in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
13. In light of the above, the impugned order dated 15.03.2017 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed with all consequential benefits.
14. Liberty is granted to the respondents to pass a fresh order, if they so desire, in accordance with law.
.
[Vivek Chaudhary J.]
Order Date :- 23.5.2023
-Amit K-
