Allowed

Hakim Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2018SPLAD/198/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appellant Hakim Singh challenged an order in a writ petition where he was not impleaded. The appellants argued that clubbing three related pending writ petitions was necessary to prevent prejudice regarding promotion claims for the same post. The court agreed.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order and directed that three related writ petitions be clubbed together and decided.

Hakim Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

1/4

¶2

Court No. - 39

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 198 of 2018

¶4

Appellant :- Hakim Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Shri Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prashant Shukla

¶5

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

¶6

The appellant had not been impleaded as a respondent in Writ Petition No.7477 of 2018 that was disposed of on 9 March 2018 against which this Special Appeal has been filed. It is for this reason that an application with a prayer for Leave to Appeal has been filed and the said application has been allowed by order of date.

¶7

The dispute raised in the Writ Petition was about promotion to the post of Lecturer ( English) in Fateh Chandra Inter College¹ , Tita Ka Tal, Loha Mandi, Agra. Ramesh Chandra Singh, respondent No.5 in this Speical, had filed the writ petiton for a direction upon the respondents to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Lecturer (English) in the College. The writ petition was disposed of on 9 March 2018 with a direction to the Joint Director of Education to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management of the Institution. As noted above, the appellant-Hakim Singh was not impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition.

¶8

It transpires from the records that there are two teachers who were claiming promotion on this post. They are the appellant Hakim Singh and the writ petitioner, Ramesh Chandra Singh. One other teacher Vinod Kumar Paliwal is claiming promotion on the post of Lecturer (Hindi) in the College.

¶9

A vacancy on the post of Lecturer arose on 30 June 1999. The Committee of

¶10

1 The College

¶11

2/4

¶12

Management forwarded the papers relating to promotion of the appellant as Lecturer in English to the District Inspector of Schools, Agra by means of the communication dated 23 July 2003. However, papers were returned by the District Inspector of Schools by letter dated 2 December 2003 with an objection that the vacancy was to be filled up by a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes. The appellant represented to the Joint Director of Education and since no action was taken, filed Writ Petition No. 32504 of 2005 in which an interim order was passed on 11 May 2005 that till the next date of listing, status-quo on the post of Lecturer in English shall be maintained. The aforesaid petition is said to be pending.

¶13

It transpires that during the pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petition, the Joint Director of Education sent a communication dated 25 April 2006 to the District Inspector of Schools granting approval to the promotion of one Vinod Kumar Paliwal as ad hoc Lecturer in Hindi subject to the decision of Writ Petition No. 32504 of 2005 filed by the appellant. This communication dated 25 April 2006 has been assailed by the appellant in Writ Petition No.26830 of 2006 (Hakim Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others) which is pending consideration.

¶14

Ramesh Chandra (respondent No.5 in the Special Appeal) also filed Writ Petition No.7477 of 2018 with the following prayers:-

¶15

"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Joint Director of Education, Agra, respondent no.2 to promote on the post of Lecturer (English) in Fateh Chand Inter College, Agra.

¶16

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Joint Director of Education, Agra respondent no.2 to take decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 6 December 2003."

¶17

A direction has been issued by the Court on 9 March 2018 which has given rise to the present Special Appeal.

¶18

The learned Judge disposed of the Writ Petition with the direction to the

¶19

3/4

¶20

Joint Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra to examine the grievance of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management of the Institution within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

¶21

Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that though Ramesh Chandra Singh had specifically referred in the aforesaid Writ Petition to the filing of the Writ Petition No.32504 of 2005 filed by the appellant but still the appellant was not impleaded as a respondent even though he was a necessary party. Learned Senior Counsel also contended that both Hakim Singh and Ramesh Chandra Singh were claiming promotion on the same post of Lecturer (English) and even Vinod Kumar Paliwal, to whom approval to promotion on the post of Lecturer in Hindi was granted by communication dated 25 April 2006, which has also been assailed by the appellant in Writ Petition No.26830 of 2006 was also not impleaded as a respondent. This Writ Petition No.26830 of 2006 assumes importance because of the condititon that only 50% post of Lecturer shall be filled up by promotion. Thus it has to be seen whether the post of Lecturer in English or Hindi has to be filled by promotion.

¶22

Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ramesh Chandra Singh assisted by Sri Prashant Shukla has, however, contended that the judgment and order dated 9 March 2018 would not cause any prejudice to the appellant inasmuch as the Joint Director of Education would have to examine the cases of all the teachers eligible for promotion as is contemplated under Rule 14 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998² .

¶23

It is clear from the records that Ramesh Chandra Singh did not implead the present appellant as a respondent in Writ Petition 7477 of 2018 filed by him in which the Court directed the Joint Director of Education, Agra, Region, Agra to look into the grievances of the (petitioner) Ramesh Chandra Singh.

¶24

2 The Rules

¶25

4/4

¶26

As noted above, the appellant also claimed promotion on the same post of Lecturer in English and, in fact, had earlier filed Writ Petition No.32504 of 2005 which is pending for disposal and in which an interim order was passed that till the next date of listing, status-quo on the post of Lecturer in English shall be maintained.

¶27

In the communication dated 25 April 2006, the Joint Director of Education has also made the promotion of Vinod Kumar Paliwal on the post of Lecturer in Hindi subject to the decision in Writ Petition No.32504 of 2005 for the reason that ultimately it has to be determined as to whether the post of Lecuter in Hindi or the post of Lecturer in English has to be filled up by promotion as promotion can only be made against 50% of the posts.

¶28

Such being the position, there appears to be substance in the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that all the three Writ Petitions, namely, Writ Petition No.32504 of 2005, Writ Petition No.26830 of 2006 and Writ Petition No.7477 of 2018 should be clubbed together and decided together so that the interest of the parties is not affected.

¶29

We, accordingly, set aside the judgment and order dated 9 March 2018 rendered in Writ Petition No.7477 of 2018 and direct that all the three writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition No.32504 of 2005, Writ Petition No.26830 of 2006 and Writ Petition No.7477 of 2018 be clubbed together and decided. As the matter relating to promotion is pending since long, it is expected that the parties will cooperate in expeditious disposal of the writ petitions.

¶30

The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

¶31

Order Date :- 12.4.2018 Junaid

¶32

(Dilip Gupta, J.)

¶33

(Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

Hakim Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hakim Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

hira lal singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

satya prakash mishra Vs State of U.P. anmd 3 Ors.

Gaurav Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

mahesh kumar upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and 2 others

wahabunnisha Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

State of U.P. Vs Umme Safia Faridi and Others