Satyendra Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9590 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Satyendra Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic ... on 23 April, 2025

Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22980
 
Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4170 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Satyendra Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Dixit,Devam Shukla,Mukul Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Madhav Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
 

1. Heard Shri Vijay Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Shri Krishna Madhav Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3.

2. This Court has passed the order dated 16.04.2025, which reads as under:-

"1. Heard Sri Vijay Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the opposite party no. 1 and 2 and Sri K.M. Shukla who has submitted that he would be filing his 'Vakalatnama' on behalf of opposite party no. 3.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the impugned order dated 2.4.2025 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Unnao is in the teeth of the order dated 28.2.2025 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 2083 of 2025. For the convenience the order dated 28.2.2025 reads as under :

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, Shri Abeer Mishra holding brief of Shri Abhinav and Shri K.M. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally.

3. At the very outset, Shri Abeer Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 states that the order impugned dated 15.01.2025 that had been passed by the B.S.A., a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, has been withdrawn vide order dated 27.02.2025, thus, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous.

4. Considering the aforesaid as well as the fact that the other impugned order dated 23.01.2025, which has been passed by the respondent No.3, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is based on the order dated 15.01.2025, which already stands withdrawn, consequently the order dated 23.01.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is quashed. Consequences to follow.

5. The writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 27.01.2025, in case he is aggrieved by the same. It would be open for the petitioner to challenge any other order with which he is affected.

6. So far as the prayer of the petitioner for payment of salary from 28.05.2024 and to continue to pay the same, it would be open for the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation in this regard to Basic Shiksha Adhikari i.e. respondent No.2 within a period of 2 weeks from today. In case such a representation is made, the concerned authority shall decide the same within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation."

3. Sri Dixit has stated that in the earlier writ petition the specific instructions were provided to the Court that the impugned order dated 15.1.2025 of that writ petition had been withdrawn by the competent authority on 27.2.2025, therefore, the petition had been rendered infructuous.

4. On account of aforesaid reason this Court quashed the consequential order dated 23.1.2025 which was impugned in the earlier writ petition. By means of impugned order dated 2.4.2025 the order dated 15.1.2025 which had been withdrawn vide order dated 27.2.2025 is said to have been declared a proper order, therefore, the same has been revived and the order dated 27.2.2025 has been declared as in-operative.

5. Sri Ran Vijay Singh prays for and is granted three days time to seek complete written instructions in the matter from the District Basic Education Officer, Unnao and if any decision is taken the same may be intimated to the Court on the next date.

6. List on 23.4.2025 as fresh in the list of fresh cases.

7. Till the next date of listing the operation, implementation and enforcement of the order dated 2.4.2025 (Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed."

3. Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that he has received complete instructions in the matter and shows those instructions to the Court, but the explanation so given in such instructions, is not satisfactory inasmuch as there may not be any plausible reason to restore the earlier order dated 15.01.2025 and withdraw the order dated 27.02.2025 whereby the order dated 15.01.2025 was withdrawn, particularly, in view of the fact that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances this Court passed an order dated 28.02.2025 (supra). Therefore, the impugned order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Unnao (here-in-after referred to as the "DIOS") is illegal and unwarranted on the face of it.

4. Shri Dixit has also challenged the Annexure No.2 of the writ petition, which is a resolution of the Committee of Management dated 18.12.2024, whereby the appointment of the petitioner had been proposed to be cancelled and in pursuant to the order dated 23.01.2025 the BSA had given approval on such resolution vide order dated 15.01.2025. Thereafter, consequential order dated 23.01.2025 has been passed dispensing with the services of the petitioner.

5. Some more facts may be considered to adjudicate this issue. Annexure No.13 is the judgment and order dated 06.03.2020 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5959 (S/S) of 2015; Satyendra Singh vs. State of U.P. & others, whereby this Court allowed the earlier writ petition of the petitioner quashing the impugned order dated 11.12.2013 of that writ petition. The aforesaid judgment and order has not been assailed or challenged by the District Basic Education Officer (here-in-after referred to as the "B.S.A.") or the Government or the Committee of Management by filing any special appeal before this Court. However, that order has been assailed by the private respondent, namely, Surendra Singh by filing special appeal bearing Special Appeal (Deective) No.162 of 2020; Surendra Singh vs. Satyendra Singh and others; and that special appeal was dismissed by this court vide judgment and order dated 08.02.2023.

6. In one hand the B.S.A. or the Government or the Committee of Management did not file any special appeal challenging the order dated 06.03.2020 and on the other hand the aforesaid order has not been complied for the substantial period though the petitioner filed one contempt petition bearing Contempt Petition No.1732 of 2023. As per Annexure No.19 of the writ petition, the judgment and order dated 06.03.2020 has been complied with on 21.05.2024 by the DIOS. It is clear that the aforesaid compliance has been made after more than 15 months from 08.02.2023 when the special appeal of the private-opposite party/ respondent has been rejected by this Court. In the aforesaid order dated 21.05.2024 (Annexure No.19) the BSA has categorically indicated that such appointment of the petitioner would be subject to final outcome of any special appeal or special leave petition, however, by that time neither any special appeal was filed by the BSA nor any special leave petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If this course was kept open by the BSA concerned, any special appeal or special leave petition could have been filed, but till date, no special appeal or special leave petition has been filed by the BSA or the Government or the Committee of Management.

7. Shri Vijay Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that though the compliance order dated 21.05.2024 has been passed but the petitioner has not been paid salary with effect from 28.05.2024 without having any cogent reason to that effect.

8. The private-opposite party/ respondent filed the special leave petition bearing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 20572 of 2024 (here-in-after referred to as the "SLP") before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed vide order dated 27.06.2024. After dismissal of the aforesaid SLP of the private-opposite party/ respondent another impugned order dated 15.01.2025 and consequential order dated 23.01.2025 was passed against the petitioner which was impugned in the writ petition bearing Writ-A No.2083 of 2025; Satyendra Singh vs. State of U.P. & others. However, during pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, one fact had been intimated to the Court that vide order dated 27.02.2025 the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 has been withdrawn. Therefore, this Court set aside/ quashed the order dated 23.01.2025. Notably, after disposing of the aforesaid writ petition finally on account of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 02.04.2025 has been passed reviving / restoring the order dated 15.01.2025, which was withdrawn vide order dated 27.02.2025, withdrawing that order i.e. order dated 27.02.2025. Prima-facie, the aforesaid conduct of the BSA concerned is not only unwarranted and uncalled for but this is a mischievous act misleading this Court in the earlier petition.

9. On the aforesaid conduct, the notice could have been issued to the BSA concerned, but on the request of Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel no such notice is issued to the BSA concerned but a note of caution is issued to remain careful in future while taking any particular stand or filing any document before the Court such stand should not be deviated so as to cause prejudice to the litigant. If any act is done having ulterior motive or extraneous design, the same may not be appreciated. If earlier impugned order dated 15.01.2025 was a justifiable order and the concerning BSA was trying to defend the same, that order should have not been withdrawn and the earlier petition could have been contested. Even otherwise, if at the time of making compliance of the judgment and order dated 06.03.2020 one recourse was kept open to file any special appeal or SLP, the authority concerned could have filed any special appeal or SLP but without taking such recourse the impugned orders which are subject matter of the aforesaid writ petition, could have not been filed inasmuch as those orders would be treated being passed in a teeth of the order of this Court, which had attained finality. If the concerning authority was willing to examine the qualifications of the petitioner, it could have been done much earlier, but after the judgment and order dated 06.03.2020 having been complied with, the concerning opposite parties may be restrained to do the same on account of principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata.

10. Though Shri Ran Vijay Singh has stated that the petitioner is lacking some qualification which is required for the post in question i.e Head Master, but admittedly no proper exercise has been undertaken by the Competent Authority during pendency of the writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.5959 (S/S) of 2015 or thereafter. For the repetition sake, it is noted that neither such exercise has been undertaken nor the judgment and order dated 06.03.2020 has been assailed by the BSA or the Government or the Committee of Management as on today.

11. Since the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 whereby the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 18.12.2024 was approved, had been withdrawn vide order dated 27.02.2025, therefore, the consequential impugner order dated 23.01.2025 had lost its efficacy. The aforesaid order dated 23.01.2025 has been set aside/ quashed by this Court vide order dated 28.02.2025 (supra), the effect thereof would be that the impugned resolution dated 18.12.2024 would be treated as non est in the eyes of law.

12. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that the impugned order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Unnao is patently illegal, arbitrary and uncalled for.

13. Hence, the impugned order dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure No.1), passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Unnao and the impugned resolution dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure No.2) passed by the opposite party No.3 i.e. Committee of Management are hereby set aside/ quashed. The petitioner shall be paid his salary with effect from 28.05.2024 and he shall also be paid his regular salary as and when the same falls due.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

15. No order as to cost.

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

Order Date :- 23.4.2025

Suresh/