Ashish Tripathi And 4 Ors. vs State Of U.P.And 6 Ors.
2025 Latest Caselaw 4358 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ashish Tripathi And 4 Ors. vs State Of U.P.And 6 Ors. on 11 August, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135283
 
Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35633 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Ashish Tripathi And 4 Ors.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 6 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Khare,Siddharth Khare
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Aditendra Singh, holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 & 6.

2. Present writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 20.06.2013 passed by Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur.

3. In the sixth respondent-institution, there are total 12 sanctioned posts of Class-IV employees, out of which 7 are already working and out of which one person belongs to scheduled caste and 2 persons belong to general category and 4 persons belong to other backward class and the remaining 5 posts were vacant in the institution.

4. The institution has initiated procedure for filling up of the said posts and sought permission from District Inspector of Schools, Kannauj for filling up of the said posts and the same was accorded by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 16.02.2009 and accordingly, an advertisement was issued in daily newspapers on 08.06.2009 and the interview was fixed on 23.06.2009. As the petitioners were fully qualified and meritorious, they were considered and selected. The said select list was sent to the District Inspector of Schools for approval and in turn, the said proposal was sent to the Regional Level Committee led by Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur. Ultimately, the said selections were approved vide order dated 31.07.2009/3.8.2009. Accordingly, appointment letters were issued on 18.07.2009.

5. Aggrieved by the said selections, some unselected participants have approached this Court by way of Writ A No. 50295 of 2009

6. Based on the observations made in the said writ petition, the respondents have recalled the approval accorded in favour of the petitioners. Assailing the same, petitioners have approached this Court by way of Writ A No. 21617 of 2010. Both the writ petitions were considered and disposed of vide order dated 7.11.2012. The writ petition filed by unselected candidates was dismissed and the writ petition filed by the petitioners recalling the approval order was allowed with the following order:

"Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21617 of 2010(Committee of Management of Smt. Sushila Devi Girls Inter College Vs. State of U.P. and others)

In the present case accepted position is that Manager Prakash Narain Kapoor, of the Committee of Management has died and till date no substitution application whatsoever has been filed for substituting legal heirs and representative of late Prakash Narain Kapoor. In view of this Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21617 of 2010 is dismissed as abated.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52011 of 2010 (Rakesh Bahadur Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others)

In the present case record in question reflects that appointment of the petitioners had been approved by the Regional Level Committee on 31.07.2009 and based on the said approval so accorded, the District Inspector of Schools has also proceeded to pass order.

It appears that on account of passing of the order in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21617 of 2010 by this Court on 21.04.2010, Regional Level Committee has proceeded to recall the order passed by Regional Level Committee on earlier occasion.

The grounds on which order dated 07.09.2010 has been passed has already been disapproved by this Court and it has been discussed in Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 21777 of 2010 (Yogendra Kumar Rawat Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 18.05.2010. In view of this order dated 07.05.2010 passed by Regional Level Committee is hereby quashed and set aside. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52011 of 2010 (Rakesh Bahadur Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) is allowed.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2511 of 2010 (Aashish Tripathi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others)

In the present case prayer has been made to direct the Regional Level Committee for ensuring payment of salary to the petitioners of aforesaid writ petition pursuant to order of approval accorded by the Regional Level Committee.

Consequently, Regional Level Committee is directed to give a re look into the matter pursuant to the judgement passed by this Court in the direction for ensuring salary to the petitioners after examining the validity of the appointment and then requisite directives be issued.

Consequently, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2511 of 2010 is disposed of."

7. Consequent to the abovesaid order, the respondents have considered the validity of the appointment of the petitioners and issued notices. Finally, respondent no. 3 have passed the impugned order on 20.06.2013 cancelling the appointment of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly contended that in fact, in earlier litigation, the Court has considered the entire record and set aside the cancellation order passed by the respondents. Cancellation of petitioners' appointment were interdicted by allowing the writ petition. As directed the respondents have release all the salaries based on the re-examination of the validity of the appointment. But surprisingly, instead of considering the appointment as approved by the competent authority vide order dated 31.07.2009/3.8.2009 and without following the principles of natural justice, impugned orders have been passed.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly stressed his arguments based on the averments made in paragraph 28 to 33 of the writ petition, which reads as under:

"28. That the order impugned has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without any hearing having been conducted by the Regional Level Committee or by any member of the Regional committee.

29. That whatever hearing was conducted was hearing conducted on 14.12.12 on which date none of the three members of the regional level committee were present. Whatever hearing was conducted was conducted by the Finance & Accounts Officer, office of Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur.

30. That it is further necessary to state that the order dated 20.6.13 has been passed by Regional Level Committee headed by Shri Vinay Kumar Pandey, the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur. It is specifically stated that Vinay Kumar Pandey has joined as Joint Director of Education only on 8.2.13. The passing of the order dated 20.6.13 is on the face of it without any hearing being conducted by Vinay Kumar Pandey.

31. That it is further necessary to state that Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, District Inspector of Schools, who has signed the order dated 20.6.13 has joined as the District Inspector of Schools, Kannauj, only on 14.6.12. Prior to him, the post of District Inspector of Schools was held by one C.L. Chaurasia, who was the District Inspector of Schools, Kannauj, in the month of December, 2012.

32. That clearly the order dated 20.6.13 has been passed by a Regional Level Committee including the Vinay Kumar Pandey and Kamlesh Kumar Yadav as its members who were not holding their respective posts on the date of hearing ie. 14.12.12.

33. That even otherwise the order impugned places reliance upon a report dated 5.2.13 submitted by the District Inspector of Schools, Kannauj, no copy of which was ever supplied to the petitioners nor the petitioners afforded any opportunity to submit reply to the said report. It is further specifically stated none of the objections contained in the order were brought to the knowledge of the petitioner at any point of time nor petitioners afforded opportunity to place their version with regard to such objections."

10. In the abovesaid paragraphs, as the petitioners have contended that the Regional Level Committee conducted hearing on 14.12.2012 and subsequently, all the members have been transferred but surprisingly, without giving opportunity, the Regional Level Committee headed by Vinay Kumar Pandey has passed the impugned order on 20.06.2013. It is also highlighted that the Joint Director of Education has joined only on 08.02.2013 as the hearing was happened on 14.12.2012. Further, he has submitted that the impugned orders are passed based on the report submitted by the District Inspector of Schools dated 5.2.2013, but surprisingly, the said report has not been provided to the petitioners before passing such order.

11. After notice, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4. Paragraphs 28 to 33 were answered at paragraphs 11 to 14, which reads as under:

"11. That the statement mentioned in paragraphs 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the writ petition is not acceptable, after providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioners, the case has been disposed of in the honour of the honourable High Court. Article 14 of the Constitution has not been violated at the case level.

12. That the statement of the petitioner mentioned in paragraph no. 30 of the writ petition is not acceptable. The petitioners were given adequate opportunity by the committee to be heard and to present their allegations.

13. That the statement mentioned in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the writ petition is not acceptable. The order was signed by the same officer who was holding that post at that time.

14. That with regard to the date 05.02.2013 mentioned in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the writ petition, it is to be said that in compliance with the order dated 01.11.2012 passed in the writ petition number 32011/2000 Rakesh Bahadur Singh vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, letter number Ma-2/Ma. U. Court/8378-84/2012-13 dated (4.12.2013) of the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Division, Kanpur. Instructions were given to provide the report by the court. In which the petitioners were also called. In the same sequence, the report was sent to the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Division, Kanpur by the office letter no. H/4451/2012-13 dated 05.02.2013. In which there is no justification for giving a copy to the petitioners."

12. Based on the above, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though there is specific averments stating that the hearing was conducted on 14.12.2012 and the impugned orders were passed on 20.06.2013 and the new officer took charge on 8.2.2013. The said aspects were not answered or denied in the counter affidavit. Further, replying to the paragraph 33, they have stated in their counter affidavit that instructions were given to provide the report by the Court, in which the petitioners were also called and after preparation of the report, same was sent to the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, hence, there is no justification for giving a copy to the petitioners. That itself clarifies that the said report was not provided to the petitioners.

13. In view of the said circumstances, as the action of the respondents passing the impugned orders by some other officer, other than the officer, who have not participated in hearing conducted on 14.12.2012 is bad in law and contrary to the observations made by this Court.

14. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 632 of 2015 (Committee of Management, Kisan Inter College & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). Relevant portion of the said order is as under:

"A Division Bench of this court in the case of Committee of Management, Aley Girls Inter College, Amroha, J.P. Nagar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2011 (6) AWC 6510, has held that Government Order dated 19.12.2000 as well as 20.10.2008 have to be interpreted in a manner so that it may effectuate the statutory scheme as laid down in Section 16-A(7). The two Government Orders cannot be read in a manner to dilute the statutory scheme.

In view of the fact that the function of the Regional Level Committee are quasi judicial in nature, hearing by a different member of the Committee and delivery of order under the signatures of a different member, who was not there at the time of hearing, will vitiate the entire proceedings.

One who hears, must decide, is well accepted principle. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rasid Javed Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2010 SC 2275, has held that

"A person who hears must decide and that divided responsibility is destructive of the concept of judicial hearing is too fundamental a proposition to be doubted."

Same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association Vs. Designated Authority, (2011) 2 SCC 258. In the said case, the designated authority under the relevant statute passed the final order on the material collected by his predecessor-in-office, who had also accorded hearing to the parties concerned. It was held that the order stood vitiated as it offended the basic principles of natural justice.

In a recent decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Shiv Raj, (2014) 6 SCC 564, while considering the provisions of Section 5-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it has been held in paragraph 20 as under.

"----- The very person/officer, who accords hearing to the objector must also submit the report/take decision on the objection and in case his successor decided the case without giving a fresh hearing, the order would stand vitiated having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice."

Shri Uma Kant, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 tried to wriggle out of the situation by making reference to Order XX Rule 2 C.P.C., which reads as under.

"A Judge shall pronounce a judgment written, but not pronounce by his predecessor."

This argument has been advanced only to be rejected. Firstly, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are not attracted to the proceedings before the Regional Level committee and secondly, even if the principle can be said to be attracted, there is nothing on record to indicate that order of the Regional Level Committee was written by the District Inspector of Schools, but on account of his absence, it was signed by the Associate District Inspector of Schools at the time of delivery, as he was holding charge of the District Inspector of Schools.

Apart from above, there are other circumstances. The alleged hearing before the Regional Level Committee took place on 29.09.2014. It was not delivered until 3rd July, 2015 when the Joint Director of Education, Smt. Sheela Verma was already transferred from the said post vide order dated 30th June, 2015 and relieved immediately."

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the identical situation, the Division Bench has taken a stand by following various orders of this Court as well as the Apex Court has held that the abovesaid officer, who accorded hearing must submit a report and also who conducted hearing, should decide the matter. In the instant case, admittedly, hearing was taken place on 14.12.2012 and the new incumbent took charge as Joint Director of Education on 8.2.2013 and the impugned orders were passed on 20.06.2013, which clearly establishes that the orders were passed by the officer other than who conducted hearing. Hence, the impugned orders were passed violating the principles of natural justice and also it could be taken on record that the impugned orders are passed only based on the report submitted by the District Inspector of Schools dated 5.2.2013 and the said report was not provided to the petitioners.

16. Considering the above aspects the impugned order dated 20.06.2013 passed by Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur is set aside and the matter is remitted to Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur to take appropriate decision, within a period of two months from today. It is needless to say that before taking any action whatever the record the authorities are relying, may be provided to the petitioners and after hearing both the petitioners as well as the management.

17. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 11.8.2025

Noman

(Donadi Ramesh, J.)