Allowed

Jagdish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2019WRIA/10900/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition contesting orders regarding the petitioner's seniority and the handover of Headmaster charges. The court set aside the orders passed without a hearing and directed the concerned authority to re-determine seniority afresh after granting the petitioner notice and an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 24.06.2019 and 05.07.2019 are set aside. The respondent is directed to decide the seniority claim afresh with notice and hearing within two months.

Jagdish Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10900 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Jagdish Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh,R.S.Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd. Hasham,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1, Sri P.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 and Mohd. Hasham, learned counsel for respondent no.4.

¶6

Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 states that they do not want to file counter affidavit and want that writ petition may be decided at this stage.

¶7

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Block Education Officer, Fazilnagar, Kushinagarrespondent no.3 directing the petitioner to handover the charge of Headmaster of the institution namely, Purva Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Chaura Khas to respondent no.4 and also the order dated 24.06.2019 passed by the respondent no.2 declaring respondent no.4 to be senior to the petitioner.

¶8

There are three institutions namely, Purva Madhyamik Vidhyalay, Shanker Patkhauli, Purva Madhyamik Vidhyalay, Chura Khas and Primary School, Shanker Patkhauli, Nyay Panchayat Khairtiya. All the aforesaid institutions are being run in one campus. By virtue of Government Order dated 22.11.2018, all the three institutions were merged by the order dated 07.01.2019 of respondent no.3. The petitioner was appointed as headmaster of the institution after merger which is named as Purva Madhyamik Vidhyalay, Shanker Patkhauli.

¶9

It appears that respondent no.4 raised seniority dispute and respondent no.2 by order dated 21.06.2019 held respondent no.4 to be senior to the petitioner. On the basis of the said order, respondent no.3 passed an order on 05.07.2019 directing the petitioner to handover the charge of Headmaster of the institution to respondent no.4.

¶10

Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the main order dated 24.06.2019 determining the inter-se seniority of petitioner and respondent

¶11

no.4 has been passed exparte without giving due notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thus, the said order is not sustainable being in violation of principle of natural justice. He further submits that since order dated 24.06.2019 is not sustainable in law, therefore, respondent no.3 has erred in placing reliance upon the said order while passing the order dated 05.07.2019 directing the petitioner to handover the charge to respondent no.4.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that it is manifest from the record that respondent no.4 is senior to petitioner, therefore, no opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the petitioner and thus, the order dated 24.06.2019 is as per law, and respondent no.3 in passing the order dated 05.07.2019 has rightly relied upon the aforesaid order. However, he contends that in the facts of the present case, if this Court is of the opinion that in case due notice or opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the petitioner, the respondent no.2 may be directed to decide the claim of seniority afresh within a stipulated period.

¶13

Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and in view of the admitted fact between the parties that petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing by the respondent no.2 before passing the order dated 24.06.2019, the said order cannot be sustained being in violation of principle of natural justice.

¶14

The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that no opportunity of hearing is required to be given cannot be sustained for the reason that petitioner has been given the charge of Headmaster of the institution and in case, his seniority is disturbed, the order of seniority disturbing the same shall cause serious prejudice to the petitioner, as he has to handover the charge of Headmaster to respondent no.4.

¶15

Thus, in the facts of the present case, in the opinion of the Court, the petitioner ought to have been given notice and opportunity of hearing by respondent no.2 before passing the order dated 24.06.2019. Since the order dated 24.06.2019 is not sustainable, therefore, the order dated 05.07.2019 cannot be sustained as the same has been passed on the basis of order dated 24.06.2019.

¶16

Thus, for the reasons give above, the orders dated 24.06.2019 passed by respondent no.2 and 05.07.2019 passed by respondent no.3 are set aside. The respondent no.2 is directed to decide the claim of petitioner and respondent no.4 afresh within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving due notice and opportunity of

¶17

hearing to the petitioner, respondent and other persons who are likely to be affected by the re-determination of seniority.

¶18

The writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made above.

¶19

Order Date :- 20.11.2019 Sattyarth

Jagdish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Ruby Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Hanisa Begam and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

C/M Janta Shiksha Sadan Purva Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Samaypur and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

C/M, Janta Purwa Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Gorakhpur, and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Samaj Kalyan Parishad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others