Rajeev Lochan Shukla vs State Of U.P. And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 2737 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rajeev Lochan Shukla vs State Of U.P. And Others on 30 July, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:126479
 
Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16867 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Rajeev Lochan Shukla
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava,Ashutosh Ganguli,Bhanu Pratap Singh,Chandan Kumar,Pranab Kumar Ganguli
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Kshitij Pandey,Sanjay Shukla,Vikas Budhwar
 

 
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Pursuant to the vacancy occurred due to retirement of one LT Grade teacher in the 4th respondent - Institution, after permission from the competent authority, the 4th respondent advertised the said vacancy. Based on the selection process, one Umesh Yadav was selected and appointed by the erstwhile manager and the said selection came to be illegal and his appointment was cancelled. Thereafore, Umesh Kumar has approached this Court by way of filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.6680 of 1992. The said writ petition was dismissed and as against he filed the special appeal, the same was resulted in dismissal for non-prosecution.

3. Consequent to the above said litigation, in fact as the petitioner was meritorious, he was offered appointment on 10.09.1994. Pursuant to the said appointment order, he joined on 16.09.1994. When his appointment was disapproved by the authorities, he approached this Court by way of filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.46011 of 1998. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court with the following directions on 26.05.2006:

"For the reasons given above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 20.6.1998 (annexure 7 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed and the matter is sent back to the concerned District Inspector of Schools to look into the matter and to do the needful preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with fresh move on behalf of petitioner as directed. The District Inspector of Schools may fix a date for appearance of petitioner and the management on which date they may place their version along with their documents and if thereafter any query and further document, the District Inspector of Schools further needs, he may fix another date on which date after receipt of all those details, he may pass appropriate order as indicated above."

4. Consequent to the above directions, the 2nd respondent considered the entire issue and approved the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 10.04.2007. But for no reason, the committee of management has filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.59255 of 2007 questioning the said approval. After considering the matter, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with the following directions on 05.12.2007:

"Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.11.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Inspector of Schools, for being decided in its correct perspective, keeping in view the full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada Versus Committee of Management Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College, and others 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551."

5. As directed by this Court in the above writ petition, the 2nd respondent once again issued notices to the petitioner as well as the committee of management and reraffirmed the earlier decision of the approval of the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 04.05.2009.

6. After dismissal of the writ petition as well as special appeal filed by one Umesh Yadav, the petitioner was appointed as LT Grade teacher in the 4th respondent - Institution and continued from 16.09.1994. In fact, as per the approval order dated 10.04.2007, the respondents have also released salaries to the petitioner and there was no complaint whatsoever against the petitioner with regard to his service. After approval order passed by the 2nd respondent on 04.05.2009, without any jurisdiction voluntarily the 2nd respondent issued notices to the petitioner as well as committee of management on 04.12.2010. The petitioner has submitted his reply on 13.12.2010. Surprisingly, without considering the reply and also without considering the orders passed by the 2nd respondent on 10.04.2007, the same authority i.e. the 2nd respondent recalled the approval order of the petitioner's appointment on 21.12.2010. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based on record, has submitted that in fact, the petitioner was meritorious candidate but for extraneous reasons, the then manager has made appointment of one Umesh Yadav and ultimately the said appointment was declared illegal. Hence, the respondents have considered the appointment of the petitioner on 10.09.1994. The said appointment was considered by the competent authority and it passed the order approving the appointment on 10.04.2007. Once the approval was made and salaries were released, the very same authority has no jurisdiction to reconsider the very same order but for intervention of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.59255 of 2007, the 2nd has once again considered the entire issue and reaffirmed the approval of the petitioner's appointment on 04.05.2009. Once the approval was reaffirmed as directed by this Court and without having any jurisdiction, the 2nd respondent cannot review his own order without supporting the Statute.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as the authorities are not entitled to review their own orders without supporting the Rules and Act, no power available to the District Inspector of Schools to review his orders. In fact, after approval order, if any laches or illegality is found, he is only entitled to refer the matter to the higher authorities but he himself cannot review the orders as the said power is not supported by the Statute.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the issue was already considered by this Court in catena of judgments and held that the District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to review the orders passed by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the impugned order dated 21.12.2010 is contrary to the observations made by this Court in the case of Ashika Prasad Shukla Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and another (1998) 3 UPLBEC 1722.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the impugned order has been passed only on the ground that the manager has not made advertisement in two newspapers as per the observations made by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Radha Raizada Versus Committee of Management Vidyawati Darbari Girls Inter College, and others 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1551. In fact, the said issue was considered by this Court in Special Appeal No.948 of 1995 Ashika Prasad Sukla Vs. DIOS, Allahabad and another (supra), and it was held that observations are only prospective. Hence, it is not applicable to the case of the petitioner's appointment which was made much before the date of judgement. In the instant case, the appointment of the petitioner was much prior to the Full Bench decision in the case of Radha Raizada (supra).

11. In reply to the said contention, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has submitted mainly on the averments made in the counter affidavit that as the committee of management has made appointment in violation of the provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Ist Order 1981, hence the impugned order is in conformity with the said provisions.

12. Considering the entire issue and the grounds raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction, it is well settled that the authorities are not entitle to review their own orders without having Statutory support. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent is unable to place any statutory provisions to support his power of reviewing the order dated 04.05.2009. In the said circumstances, as the very same authority has approved appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 10.04.2007 and the said approval was reaffirmed vide order dated 04.05.2009, hence in the said circumstances, the impugned order 21.12.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent is held to be without jurisdiction, as such the same is set aside.

13. The respondents are directed to release monetary benefits to the petitioner as per the appointment made on 10.09.1994 which was approved by the competent authority on 10.04.2007 and reaffirmed on 04.05.2009. This exercise should be completed within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. So far as payment of interest is concerned, the same may also be considered by the competent authorities.

14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 30.7.2025

rkg

(Donadi Ramesh, J.)