Dismissed

Dhirendra Nath Dubey v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2018WRIA/49545/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by a complainant challenging the appointment of a teacher via alleged forged documents. The court held the petitioner lacked locus standi as a mere complainant and found the petition premature because the disciplinary inquiry was still continuing.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner lacks locus standi and the matter is premature as the inquiry is continuing.

Dhirendra Nath Dubey Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 49545 of 2002

¶3

Petitioner :- Dhirendra Nath Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava,H.P.Mishra,Manoj Kumar Dwivedi,Vinay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.Upadhaya,M.A. Qadeer,V.P. Mathur

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

¶6

The petitioner appears to have made a complaint that respondent - 7 Muneer Alam has got appointment as Assistant Teacher in Abdul Hakeem Agricultural Intermediate College, Ujiyar, Dudhara, Sant Kabir Nagar on the basis of some forged and fictitious documents. It appears that inquiry was conduced by District Inspector of Schools, Basti/Sant Kabir Nagar and he found that complaint was incorrect and submitted report dated 23.3.2002 to this effect to District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar whereupon District Magistrate passed an order on 24.5.2002 directing that salary shall be paid to respondent 7 but inquiry would continue.

¶7

Report of District Inspector of Schools and order of District Magistrate have been challenged in present writ petition in which petitioner is complainant and was candidate to the said post but not selected and appointed. He has also challenged appointment of respondent – 7 by means of present petition.

¶8

Prima facie report has already been submitted by District

¶9

¶10

Inspector of Schools finding that there was no illegality in appointment of respondent – 7 but still order of District Magistrate shows that inquiry is continuing.

¶11

Petitioner is only a complainant to the alleged complaint that document filed by respondent – 7 was forged. The petitioner, if has any grievance against inquiry conducted by District Inspector of Schools, it is open to him to initiate criminal proceedings against respondent – 7 for forging the document and prove the case but has no locus standi to move this writ petition being in this regard he is only a complainant.

¶12

A Division Bench of this Court in Amin Khan Vs. State of U.P., 2008 (2) AWC 2002 has said, "in case he was a complainant, he could be, at the most, examined as a witness in the enquiry but he cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis."

¶13

The same view has been taken in another Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal No. 382 of 2008 (Guru Prasad Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 13.3.2008 and a single Judge decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 18839 of 2008 (Shravan Kumar Chauhan Vs. state of U.P. decided on 11.04.2008.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner then placed reliance on a Single Judge judgment in Vinod Kumar Upadhyaya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2011(8) ADJ 588 stating that "Shiksha Alankar" is not a recognized qualification for appointment as Assistant Teacher and, therefore, respondent – 7 has been wrongly appointed, but, we find that in the aforesaid judgment, there was no dispute

¶15

¶16

with regard to the fact whether the document was forged or not though in the present case, there is a dispute whether the document is forged and fictitious, which is a different aspect.

¶17

So far as validity of said qualification is concerned, inquiry is still continuing. The petition, as such, is premature.

¶18

Dismissed accordingly.

¶19

Order Date :- 26.2.2018 KA

Dhirendra Nath Dubey v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirendra Nath Dubey 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dauly Kumari Vs State of U.P. and Others

gopal singh Vs smt. renu

united india insurance com. Ltd. through divisional manager Vs smt. santlesh and 7 others

Rafique Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Faizul Uloom Madarsa Islamia Shiksha Samiti and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madan Lal Talvar Vs Gur Bachan Lal Talvar Since Dead and Another