Quashed

Subhash Chandra Laboratory Attendant (Botany) v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2018WRIA/13976/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed an order rejecting a petitioner's promotion claim due to lack of natural justice, specifically the absence of a show cause notice. The matter was remanded to the respondent for a fresh decision within six weeks after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remanded for fresh decision within six weeks after hearing.

Subhash Chandra Laboratory Attendant (Botany) Vs… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13976 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Laboratory Attendant (Botany) Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brij Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By order dated 01.12.2017 in Writ-A No.57474 of 2017 (Subhash Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) this Court directed the respondent No.5 to consider and decide the claim/representation of the petitioner by reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within the period of eight weeks. The petitioner moved a representation dated 18.12.2017 annexing therewith a certified copy of the aforesaid order of this Court. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order dated 23.04.2018 passed by the respondent No.5, whereby the claim of the petitioner for promotion from Class-IV to Class-III employee has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not qualified for the post of Routine Grade Clerk cancellation, inasmuch as, he does not possess the requisite educational qualification.

¶7

Along with this writ petition the petitioner has filed copies of his educational qualification as Annexure-1 to the writ petition which shows that the petitioner possess the B.Ed. degree. It has also been alleged that he has obtained a typing course certificate dated 30.06.2017. From the impugned order, it appears that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner requiring him to submit reply with respect to the grounds on which the respondent No.5 proposed to reject the claim of the petitioner for promotion.

¶8

Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 23.04.2018 is violative of principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.5 to take a decision afresh in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit a copy of all requisite documents within two weeks from today along with certified copy of this order and also produced original before the respondent No.5.

¶9

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶10

Order Date :- 11.7.2018 Nitin Verma

Subhash Chandra Laboratory Attendant (Botany) v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chandra Laboratory Attendant (Botany) 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Shanker Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Umesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shivam Bhardwaj and 14 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilip Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Minakshi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Neel Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others