The High Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous after the Respondent District Basic Education Officer cancelled a show-cause notice and directed payment of salary, thereby satisfying the petitioner's grievance and removing the cause of action.
Writ petition consigned to record as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24029 of 2018
Petitioner :- Brajendra Swaroop Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 05 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
While entertaining this writ petition this Court on 30.11.2018 had passed the following order:
"The contention advanced on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner is that on earlier occasion on the basis of relevant certificates in question the petitioner's training was stopped. He approached this Court be means of Writ Petition No. 19868 of 2010 which was disposed of on 20th July, 2010 with a direction that the petitioner may approach the authority concerned with a representation and the authority concerned shall take decision in the matter by reason and speaking order.
It appears that the petitioner has approached the authority and the authority after due verification permitted him to complete his training and appointment order was issued on 14.11.2011and so it goes without saying that due verification of the academic records/ credentials of the petitioner in relation to eligibility minimum required eligibility must have been made prior to the issuance of appointment order.
This Court does not appreciate the arbitrary and unilateral action which entertain the individual private complaint in matters of public employments where the appointments are made after due verification of records. Before this Court proceeds any further in the matter learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 4 and 6 Sri A.C. Srivastava seeks time to have instructions in the matter from his client.
Request made is allowed.
Put up this matter as fresh on 6th December, 2018."
Today Sri A.C. Srivastava, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent District Basic Education Officer has placed two orders dated 4.12.2018 separately passed, in one of which the notice to the petitioner dated 16.10.2018 has been cancelled; the other order is with regard to the payment of salary and it has been directed that the payment of salary provided for under the order dated 23.10.2018, is hereby directed to be released.
Both the orders are taken on record and it is understandable that the copies thereof must have been supplied to the counsel of the petitioner.
In view of the above, therefore, cause of action no more survives and there is nothing to keep the writ petition pending.
Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees that since the grievance has already addressed to, therefore, this writ petition can be consigned to record in the light of the orders passed by the District Basic Education Officer appears before the Court, as infructuous.
Before parting with the case this Court may observe that the authorities
shall in future take good care in exercising administrative power, while dealing with private individual complaints if such individual is neither a candidate in the first instance nor, such individual is the employer either, in case of by privately managed recognised schools.
Writ petition is consigned to record.
Order Date :- 6.12.2018 Md Faisal
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition involves a continuing dispute given the orders passed by the respondent authority addressing the grievance.
Brajendra Swaroop Srivastava
State Of U.P.
District Basic Education Officer
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
