Manju Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7489 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Manju Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 30 May, 2025

Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34123
 
Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6410 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Manju Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Diwakar Singh Kaushik,Alok Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 to 4.

2. In view of the proposed order, notice to opposite parties No. 5 & 6 is hereby dispensed with.

3. By means of this petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order of cancellation of appointment/termination from service dated 22.10.2024 passed by opposite party no. 2 i.e. Director of Education (Secondary Education) as contained in ANNEXURE No.1 to the writ petition, so far it relates to the petitioner.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner in service on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) as earlier and to pay her salary regularly each and every month with all consequential benefits.

4. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure-23 which is a judgment and order dated 08.05.2025 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.3927 of 2025; Neeta Singh vs. State of U.P. and others.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that by means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the similar impugned order having same date on the same ground, therefore, the benefit of the judgment and order dated 08.05.2025 may be given to the present petitioner. The order dated 08.05.2025, reads as under:

"1. Heard Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Alok Yadav and Sri Kazim Ibrahim, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents No.1 to 4.

2. Since no one has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party Nos.5 & 6, therefore, in view of the proposed order, the notices to those parties are hereby dispensed with.

3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order of cancellation of appointment/ termination from service dated 22.10.2024 passed by the opposite party No.2 i.e. Director of Education (Secondary Education), as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, so far as it relates to the petitioner.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner in service as earlier and to pay her salary regularly each and every month with all consequential benefits."

4. The learned Senior Advocate has assailed the aforesaid order mainly on the ground that the impugned order is in violation of Section 16-E (10) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (here-in-referred to as the "Act, 1921"). The aforesaid section reads as under:-

"Section 16-E (10) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (10) Where the State Government, in case of the appointment of Head of Institution, and the Director in the case of the appointment of teacher of an institution, is satisfied that any person has been appointed as Head of Institution or teacher, as the case may be, in contravention of the provisions of this Act, the State Government or, as the case may be, the Director may, after affording an opportunity of being heard to such person, cancel such appointment and pass such consequential order as may be necessary."

5. Sri Mathur has submitted that the relevant material, which has been referred in the impugned order, the related documents to that effect has not been provided to the petitioner, therefore, proper opportunity of personal hearing in terms of Section 16-E (10) of the Act, 1921 has been provided to the petitioner.

6. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.15 of the writ petition, which is a show cause notice dated 17.05.2024 issued to the petitioner asking her to appear in the office of the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow on 11.06.2024 explaining four points which have been indicated in such notice. In compliance of the aforesaid show cause notice, she submitted her explanation on 11.06.2024 (Annexure No.16) making request that the show cause notice be withdrawn and she be reinstated in service with full back wages and she be paid her regular salary.

7. After submitting the explanation on 11.06.2024, the petitioner expected that she would be given an opportunity of personal hearing in terms of the aforesaid section, but no such opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner.

8. Sri Mathur has further drawn attention of this Court towards the impugned order wherein one detailed report of the District Inspector of Schools (Second), Lucknow (here-in-after referred to as the "DIOS (Second)" dated 06.06.2024 has been referred in so many pages relating to the petitioner and other teachers, but copy of the aforesaid report dated 06.06.2024 has not been provided to the petitioner and this fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties. In the aforesaid report, some allegations have been levelled against the petitioner but she was unable to defend those allegations as the copy thereof has not been provided to her.

9. Sri Mathur has submitted that if any inquiry was conducted by the DIOS concerned and the report dated 06.06.2024 was submitted before the Competent Authority, a supplementary show cause notice could have been issued annexing therewith a copy of such inquiry report so that the petitioner could have submitted her defence reply before the Competent Authority.

10. Sri Mathur has also shown some facts, which have been indicated in the impugned order, but the details thereof have not been provided to the petitioner. Sri Mathur has also submitted that in the show cause notice those material have not been indicated.

11. As per Sri Mathur, in the show cause notice dated 17.05.2024 the details of the report dated 06.06.2024 of the DIOS (Second) could have not been indicated as it was the subsequent development after issuing the show cause notice. In the impugned order, the explanation of the petitioner has been referred but it has no where been indicated as to whether the petitioner has been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing or not.

12. On being asked from the learned Standing Counsel as to whether any supplementary show cause notice was issued after 17.05.2024, to be more precise after the inquiry report dated 06.06.2024 of the DIOS (Second), Lucknow as the reference thereof has not been indicated in the impugned order, learned Standing Counsel has stated that no such supplementary show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and the same stand has been taken in the counter affidavit.

13. Therefore, prima-facie, it is clear that no supplementary show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner after 06.06.2024 when the DIOS (Second), Lucknow submitted his report dated 06.06.2024 before the Competent Authority. Besides, except four points, which have been indicated in the show cause notice dated 17.05.2024, some more material has been considered by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow while passing the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 and the details thereof have not been provided to the petitioner, therefore, I find that there is an error apparent on the face of the impugned order dated 22.10.2024.

14. Accordingly, this writ petition is liable to be allowed and is hereby allowed only on the aforesaid reason alone setting aside the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 (Annexure No.1) passed by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow, so far as it relates to the present petitioner. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service and shall be paid her regular salary.

15. It is needless to say that it is always open for the Competent Authority to take appropriate decision in the case of the petitioner by issuing a fresh show cause notice enclosing therewith all relevant materials and the evidences relating to the allegations seeking explanation from the petitioner and after receiving the explanation of the petitioner, appropriate order may be passed by affording an opportunity of personal hearing. The aforesaid exercise, if it is so required, may be undertaken with expedition preferably within a period of six weeks.

16. Consequences to follow.

17. No order as to cost."

6. Learned counsel has stated that the aforesaid petitioner, namely, Neeta Singh was serving on the post of Lecturer (History) whereas the present petitioner is serving on the post of Lecturer (Hindi).

7. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the present petitioner is similarly placed with Neeta Singh.

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is liable to be allowed and is hereby allowed in terms of the judgement and order dated 08.05.2025, setting aside the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 (Annexure No.1) passed by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow, so far as it relates to the present petitioner. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service and shall be paid her regular salary.

9. It is needless to say that it is always open for the Competent Authority to take appropriate decision in the case of the petitioner by issuing a fresh show cause notice enclosing therewith all relevant materials and the evidences relating to the allegations seeking explanation from the petitioner and after receiving the explanation of the petitioner, appropriate order may be passed by affording an opportunity of personal hearing. The aforesaid exercise, if it is so required, may be undertaken with expedition preferably within a period of six weeks.

10. Consequences to follow.

11. No order as to cost.

.

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

Order Date :- 30.5.2025

Suresh/