Dismissed

Sahab Sartaj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2018WRIA/4604/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged orders assigning them general works instead of important duties. The court held the Commissioner lacked authority to interfere in the District Basic Education Officer's administration and set aside the orders, directing an independent enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Work-allocation orders dated 11.1.2018 and 19.1.2018 set aside; Commissioner's authority held void; independent enquiry directed.

Sahab Sartaj Vs State of U.P. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4604 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sahab Sartaj Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Pande Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Rakesh Pande, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents as well as Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Notice need not be issued to the private respondents nos.5 to 9 in view of the order proposed to be passed.

¶5

The petitioners are before this Court assailing the impugned order dated 11.1.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur whereby he has directed the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar to remove the petitioners working as Senior Clerks in his office from all important works and engage them in general works and consequential order dated 19.1.2018 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur whereby in pursuance of the order dated 11.1.2018, the works assigned to the petitioners have been allocated to the Clerks, arrayed as private respondent nos.5 to 9.

¶6

Shri Rakesh Pande, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur has no authority in law to direct to the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar to pass such an order. The order of District Basic Education Officer dated 19.1.2018 has been passed without application of mind and solely on the directions of the Commissioner of the Division. The said order amounted to interference in the administrative functions of the office of the District Basic Education Officer and as such, the order impugned is contrary to the law and without having any authority in law and the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgement dated 13.3.2013 passed in Writ A No.17325 of 1999 ( Madan Kumar and others vs. D.M., Auraiya & others ).

¶7

So far as legal aspect is concerned, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 have accepted the argument so advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is of the considered

¶9

opinion that the order impugned dated 11.1.2018 as well as the consequential order dated 19.1.2018 cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same are accordingly set aside.

¶10

In case any such complaint has been received against the petitioner, the same would be considered by the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar independently after thorough enquiry in the matter and only thereafter he will proceed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.2.2018 RKP

Sahab Sartaj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahab Sartaj v. State of U.P.

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

C/M Kishan Junior High School Sherpur Khader, Muzaffarnagar through Its Manager, Babu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

C/M Janta Junior High School Karhera, Muzaffarnagar, through Its Manager Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arbind Kumar Singh and 1 Other Vs State of U.P.and 4 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Riyasat Ali Khan Vs State of U.P.

Ram Bharose Vs the State of Uttar Pradesh