Allowed

C/M Manokaran Junior High School, Shahjahanpur v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2018SPLA/290/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal against a lower court order directing a District Basic Education Officer to decide on a Head Master's suspension representation. The court held the Officer lacked jurisdiction but allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Special Appeal allowed, lower order modified to direct disciplinary enquiry to be concluded within two months from the filing of the certified copy of this order.

C/M Manokaran Junior High School… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 290 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- C/M Manokaran Junior High School, Shahjahanpur Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Shantanu Pandey,Sri Radha Kant Ojha

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prabhakar Awasthi,Santosh Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶6

The disposal of the writ petition with a direction to the District Basic Education Officer to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner against the suspension order dated 2 February 2018 has led to the filing of the Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules by the Committee of Management of the Institution.

¶7

It transpires from the record that pursuant to a resolution of the Committee of Management, the writ petitioner who was the Head Master of a Junior High School was placed under suspension by order dated 2 February 2018. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner filed a representation before the District Basic Education Officer on 5 February 2018 and since a decision was not taken, the writ petition was filed. The learned Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the District Basic Education Officer to take a decision on the representation within two months in accordance with law.

¶8

Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the District Basic Education Officer has no authority to examine the representation or the grievance in regard to the suspension of a Head Master of a Junior High School and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Shyama Verma V. Basic Education Board, U.P. Alld. (1995) 2 UPLBEC 779 .

¶9

Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has stated that not only the suspension order is vague but has also been passed for ulterior motives and is based on a direction issued by the District Basic Education Officer in the Communication dated 31 January 2018.

¶10

We have considered the submissions advanced by learned

¶11

counsel for the parties.

¶12

It cannot be doubted that in view of the decision in Smt. Shyama Verma, the District Basic Education Officer does not have any authority to examine the representation or grievance of a Head Master of a Junior High School in regard to a suspension order.

¶13

It has been brought to the notice of the Court that a charge-sheet has been served upon the writ petitioner on 12 March 2018 and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the Committee of Management of the Institution will make all endeavours to conclude the enquiry within two months, provided the petitioner cooperates in the enquiry.

¶14

Such being the position, it will not be appropriate for the Court to examine whether the charges are vague or the suspension order has been passed for ulterior motives or is based on the communication dated 31 January 2018 sent by the District Basic Education Officer.

¶15

The ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued to conclude the disciplinary enquiry pending against the writ petitioner within two months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order.

¶16

The Special Appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the order of the learned Judge stands modified to the extent indicated above.

¶17

Order Date :- 9.4.2018 sartaj

¶18

(Dilip Gupta,J.)

¶19

(Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

C/M Manokaran Junior High School, Shahjahanpur v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Manokaran Junior High School, Shahjahanpur v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharam Kumar Vs Union of India and Others

kausar ali Vs union of india and 3 Ors.

Premsheela Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

P.N.O. No. 062240172 Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shamim Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Manvendra Kumar Pratihar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others