Allowed

Abdul Wahid and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2018WRIA/43433/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order invalidating their appointments as Assistant Teachers. The High Court found the order was ex-parte, arbitrary, and illegal due to violation of natural justice principles in a management dispute context, quashing it.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 2.7.2010. Issued mandamus to re-decide the controversy with proper notice and hearing.

Abdul Wahid and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43433 of 2010

¶4

Petitioner :- Abdul Wahid And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- M. Sarwar Khan,R.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C.,R. N. Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

The petitioners no.1 and 2 were appointed as Assistant Teachers in the Madarsa Baitul Uloom Chorari Mariyahun, District Jaunpur. The petitioners claim to be appointed on various dates, which are extracted in a tabulated form hereunder:-

¶7

Name	Appointment date	Post
Abdul Wahid	01/03/98	Assistant Teacher
Mohd. Yaseen	01/03/99	Assistant Teacher

¶8

The institution was taken on grant-in-aid list by the State Government w.e.f. 15.3.2005. It is claimed that the managerial return containing the list of the staff and Teachers working on the date the institution was brought within the purview of grant-in-aid was sent to the competent authority. The names of the petitioners were shown in the aforesaid list. The names of the petitioners were approved by the competent authority for grant of salary. Consequent to the approval, salaries were disbursed to the petitioners as and when they became due. Thereafter a management dispute arose in the aforesaid institution.

¶9

The contention of Sri Chaudhary N. A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners is that factionalism due to the said dispute caused the appointments of the petitioners to be called in question. The attempt to taint the appointments of the petitioners was actuated by malafides. Such stand was taken solely to invalidate the

¶10

¶11

appointments made by the competing faction in the management dispute.

¶12

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Chaudhary N. A. Khan is that the appointments of the petitioners were made in accordance with law and were beyond any taint of illegality.

¶13

The dispute regarding the validity of the appointment of the petitioners engaged the attention of this court. Various writ petitions were instituted before this court. The leading writ petition was registered as C. M. Writ Petition No.49079 of 2007, Committee of Management Madarsa Baitul Uloom Chorari Mariyahun, District Jaunpur and another Vs. State of U.P. and others. The C. M. Writ Petition No.49079 of 2007, Committee of Management Madarsa Baitul Uloom Chorari Mariyahun, District Jaunpur and another Vs. State of U.P. and others along-with companion writ petitions were finally decided by a judgment and order dated 11.2.2010 entered by this court. The operative portion of the judgement entered by this court reads thus:-

¶14

“Accordingly, all the three writ petitions are disposed of by providing that the Committee of Management, Abdul Wahid, Mohd. Yaseen and the clients of Shri N.A. Khan, are granted liberty to file their respective claims qua entitlement of salary from State exchequer within two weeks from today along with the certified copy of this order before respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1 shall thereafter summon the original record from the Madarsa as well as from the office of the Registrar and shall satisfy himself qua the 3 issues noticed above. The Secretary shall record

¶15

¶16

his specific finding on all the three aspects of the matter, referred to above, in respect of each employee separately. The aforesaid exercise must be completed within three months from the date of the application so filed.

¶17

For the period of three months, status quo as on date with regard to payment of salary shall be maintained by the office of the Registrar, and shall thereafter abide by the order to be passed by the Secretary as indicated above.”

¶18

In compliance of the order passed by this court the controversy was placed before the respondent no.1, Principal Secretary Minority Welfare Department, U.P., Lucknow. The respondent no.1, Principal Secretary Minority Welfare Department, U.P., Lucknow decided the controversy by an order dated 2.7.2010.

¶19

The order dated 2.7.2010 invalidates the appointments of all the employees including the petitioners.

¶20

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 2.7.2010. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 2.7.2010 passed by the respondent no.1, Principal Secretary Minority Welfare Department, U.P., Lucknow in the instant writ petition.

¶21

Sri Chaudhary N. A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 2.7.2010 is exparte to the petitioners and has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The order is based solely on the report sent by one Umar, who claimed to be the Manager of one of the contending fashion. The report of the said Umar is biased, lacks credibility and was not worthy of any reliance. The learned counsel for the

¶22

¶23

petitioners has made specific submissions on the aforesaid issues in court and has pointed out categorical assertions made in the writ petition.

¶24

No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent State Authorities.

¶25

The averments regarding the order being exparte to the petitioners have not been disputed by the counter affidavit. The existence of the dispute in the Committee of Management has not been denied. The fact of collusion of a managerial faction with the department has also not been refuted.

¶26

Sri R. N. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the order impugned is exparte to the petitioners. The respondents could not deny this fact in the counter affidavit. He further submits that the controversy may be decided after due opportunity of hearing to all the interested and necessary parties.

¶27

In view of the submissions of the learned counsel and upon perusal of the record, it is found that the order dated 2.7.2010 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The order dated 2.7.2010 is arbitrary and illegal. The order dated 2.7.2010 cannot stand.

¶28

The order dated 2.7.2010 passed by respondent no.1, Principal Secretary Minority Welfare Department, U.P., Lucknow, is quashed.

¶29

A mandamus is issued to the respondent no.1 commanding him to execute the following directions.

¶30

(i) The respondent no.1 shall take steps to decide the controversy afresh.

¶31

(ii) The respondent no.1 shall notice all the necessary parties including the petitioners, the Committee

¶32

¶33

of Management and the competent officials and other necessary parties before the proceeding to hearing the matter.

¶34

(iii) All pleadings and adverse materials relied upon by various parties against each other shall be exchanged and served upon the opposite parties before hearing is conducted by respondent no.1.

¶35

(iv) The respondent no.1 shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the Committee of Management and all necessary parties.

¶36

(v) After hearing the matter the respondent no.1 shall pass reasoned and speaking order after independent application of mind in accordance with law.

¶37

(vi) The exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶38

The writ petition is allowed.

¶39

Order Date :- 10.9.2018 Pramod

Abdul Wahid and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Wahid and Another v. State of U.P. and 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

Tasadduk Husain Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Charan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Tarkeshwar Nath Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and Others

Chunni Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sri Krishna Yadav Vs Union of India and Others

Ram Sahay Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Others