Smt. Meena And 13 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 3091 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Meena And 13 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 5 February, 2024

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:19013
 
Reserved on : 01.02.2024
 
Delivered on : 05.02.2024
 

 
Court No. - 36 
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11787 of 2018 
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Meena And 13 Others 
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others 
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh 
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Yadav,Sunil Dubey 
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned Additional C.S.C. for State.

2. Petitioners have claimed that they are working as Teachers in Junior High School under respondent No.7 (Committee of Management Vivekanand Vidyamandir Mantesary and Junior High School) since 1988, after due approval of concerned Basic Shiksha Adhikari.

3. It is further case of petitioners that concern school was brought under the scheme of Grant-in-Aid and accordingly, an order in this regard was passed by the Secretary Basic Education, U.P. Government. The Director of Basic Education, vide order dated 25.08.2017 directed the Regional Deputy Director of Education (Basic Education) to grant approval and to release salary in accordance with prescribed procedure of employees working at the concerned school.

4. It is further case of petitioners that when matter remained pending for some time, they approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition bearing No.7663 of 2018. In writ petition various orders were passed, directing the concerned respondent to pass an appropriate order for approval.

5. It is further case of petitioners that since strict orders were passed in said writ petition, therefore, concerned respondent i.e. the Regional Committee Basic Education has passed, the impugned order dated 07.04.2018, feeling amazed and on a very technical ground, approval was wrongly rejected. In the present writ petition, aforesaid order dated 07.04.2018 is impugned.

6. I have carefully perused the impugned order that claim of petitioners were rejected mainly on grounds that; (i) No permission was granted to issue advertisement for their appointment; (ii) Nomination for interview was not signed with name of concerned B.S.A.;(iii) Interview marks were not approved by Basic Shiksha Adhikari; (iii) Permission accorded to open extra wing was not corroborated by dispatch register and (iv) The documents placed in support of prayer for approval were not corroborated from dispatch register.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that a legitimate claim of petitioners who are working as Teachers in concerned school for last many decades was rejected by Regional Committee Basic Education only on technical grounds. The documents submitted by Committee of Management itself were not doubted but on basis of technical grounds such as no details were mentioned in dispatch register or the name of concerned Basic Shiksha Adhikari was not mentioned, the claim was rejected.

8. Learned counsel also submitted that impugned order was passed since this Court has passed strict orders in earlier writ petition. He further submitted that principles of natural justice were not followed that stand of petitioners as well as Committee of Management was not heard before impugned order was passed.

9. The aforesaid submissions are opposed by learned Additional C.S.C. for State that claim of petitioners was considered on basis of documents submitted by Management of school and since the same were found defective and not supported by necessary details in dispatch register as well as due to other irregularities, their claim were rightly rejected. He also referred paragraph No.28 of counter affidavit that principles of natural justice were complied and for reference said paragraph is reproduced hereinafter:

" That the contents of paragraph No.39 and 40 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated hence denied. It is submitted in this connection that the order dated 07.04.2018 was passed after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and considering the entire materials on record as such the order does not call for any interference by this Hon'ble court. The petitioners have not been able to make out any case in their favour for grant of any order by this Hon'ble court, writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed by this Hon'ble court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

10. Heard counsel for parties and perused the record.

11. The petitioners have claimed that they are working in concerned Junior High School since 1988, therefore, they have legitimate right to protect their appointment and to place their case for approval.

12. From the bare perusal of impugned order, I find merit in argument of learned counsel for petitioners that stand of petitioners as well as Management was not heard and impugned order was passed only on basis of documents submitted by management of school.

13. The respondent committee has jurisdiction to consider the documents submitted by management of school and to scrutinize it in terms of relevant legal provisions and on basis of it an approval could be granted or rejected, however, for that very technical approach is not required. The Committee could scrutinize whether substantial procedure was followed or not for appointment and that no fraud was played and the Committee has required to take note the length of service of petitioners also.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, since this Court is of the view that stand of petitioners as well as Management were not heard as well as taking note of following paragraph of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others Vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3453 that Audi Alteram Partem is a protection granted to petitioners but it was not followed as vide impugned order, their claim for approval was rejected without giving them an opportunity of hearing. The relevant paragraph of Rajesh Agarwal & Ors(supra) is reproduced hereinafter:-

"D.2 Audi Alteram Partem

29. We need to bear in mind that the principles of natural justice are not mere legal formalities. They constitute substantive obligations that need to be followed by decision-making and adjudicating authorities. The principles of natural justice act as a guarantee against arbitrary action, both in terms of procedure and substance, by judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative authorities. Two fundamental principles of natural justice are entrenched in Indian jurisprudence: (i) nemo judex in causa sua, which means that no person should be a judge in their own cause; and (ii) audi alteram partem, which means that a person affected by administrative, judicial or quasi- judicial action must be heard before a decision is taken. The courts generally favor interpretation of a statutory provision consistent with the principles of natural justice because it is presumed that the statutory authorities do not intend to contravene fundamental rights. Application of 26 the said principles depends on the facts and circumstances of the case, express language and basic scheme of the statute under which the administrative power is exercised, the nature and purpose for which the power is conferred, and the final effect of the exercise of that power."

(Emphasis Supplied)

15. Taking note of above discussion and legal position, the Court is of the considered opinion that since petitioners were not heard, therefore, an irregularity and illegality was occurred in the impugned order, accordingly, it is set aside and matter is remitted to respondent Committee to decide afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to petitioners and Committee of Management.

16. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with aforesaid observations.

Order Date : 05.02.2024

P. Pandey

[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]