Disposed

C/M Sardar Patel Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2018WRIA/24073/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition challenging the appointment of an Authorised Controller, allowing the petitioner to pursue an appeal under Section 7 of the U.P. Junior High School Act, 1978, before the Director of Education.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to file appeal under Section 7 of the Act before Director of Education.

C/M Sardar Patel Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24073 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Sardar Patel Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Singh,Sankalp Narain,Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶6

The petitioners claiming themselves to be Committee of Management and its Manager, have filed the instant writ petition assailing the order dated 14.9.2018 passed by Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Azamgarh appointing Authorised Controller in Sardar Patel Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, thereby superseding the Committee of Management of the said institution. It is noteworthy that a rival Committee of Management of the same institution filed Writ Petition No.35767 of 2018 through its Manager Uchchahal Singh. The said writ petition was disposed of on concession made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing appeal against the order impugned under Section 7 of the U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978. The relevant part of the order dated 27.10.2018 passed in Writ-C No.35767 of 2018 is as under:-

¶7

"Learned counsel for the petitioners, after some argument, very fairly concedes that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing appeal under Section 7 of the U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1978 before the Director of Education. He also does not dispute that the Director of Education has got power to grant stay of the order impugned in appeal.

¶8

Having regard to the said fact, this Court is not inclined to entertain the challenge and accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the earlier writ petition was by a Committee which was not in effective control. He further tried to contend that it is for the said reason that the counsel appearing in the said writ petition conceded that there was alternative remedy of filing appeal. He further submitted that in identical facts and circumstances, this Court has interfered in a large number of cases and the order

¶10

appointing Authorised Controller had been quashed with liberty to the authorities to pass fresh orders after following the procedure prescribed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that under Section 7 of the Act, an appeal lies against an order appointing Authorised Controller before the Director of Education and the appellate authority also has power to stay the order impugned before it. He, therefore, very fairly agreed for availing the alternative remedy, but submitted that the stay application which may be filed by the petitioners in appeal, be directed to be decided forthwith having regard to the orders passed by this Court in identical matters. In this regard, he has also referred to one such order placed on record at page 181.

¶12

Mrs. Anjali informs the Court that she has filed a caveat application on behalf of Uchchahal Singh, who had filed the earlier writ petition. She states that in pursuance of order dated 27.10.2018 passed in earlier petition, an appeal has already been filed and which is pending before the Director.

¶13

Since in earlier Writ, the Court has permitted filing of appeal and had declined to entertain the challenge, therefore, I am not inclined to take a different view in the instant matter, where the same order is under challenge.

¶14

Having regard to the above facts, the instant writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Director. It shall be open to the petitioners to file a stay application. In the event, any stay application is filed, the appellate authority shall pass appropriate orders on the said application within a week, having regard to the orders passed by this Court in identical cases.

¶15

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)

¶16

Order Date :- 26.11.2018 SL

C/M Sardar Patel Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Sardar Patel Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Mahendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Sarswati Shiksha Parishad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

C/M Islam Modern Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Baldev Raj Ahuja Vs Smt. Jyoti Singh and 2 Others

Chokhe Lal and Another Vs Vishnu Kant Agrawal and Another

State of U.P. Vs Lucknow Division