Appeal by teacher against Single Bench order quashing employment based on forged document. High Court Special Appeal Bench found no error in dismissing writ due to factual complexity. Appeal dismissed.
No relief granted to the appellant; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1163 of 2012 Appellant :- Ram Naresh Chaturvedi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.C. Shukla,S.K. Verma Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 11th May, 2012 passed by learned Single Bench which reads as under:-
"The Regional Director of Basic Education, Kanpur Mandal Kanpur under the order impugned dated 23.01.2012 after detail inquiry and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Committee of Management has recorded a categorical finding of fact that the approval order dated 12.05.1982 on the basis whereof the petitioner claims to have been working in the institution is a forged document. Therefore, the petitioner has been directed to be removed and a First Information Report has also been directed to be lodged.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to challenge the finding of facts so recorded with reference to other evidence on record.
I am of the considered opinion that the disputed issues of fact cannot be the subject matter of the consideration under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to file a suit for declaration of his status and other consequential benefits."
From perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that learned Single Bench noticed disputed questions of fact that cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction and relegated to avail remedy by way of filing a suit of declaration.
We do not find any wrong with the order impugned. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary remedy. The Court if arrives at a conclusion that certain complicated questions of facts are required to be adjudicated for which it is not well equipped, it can very well refuse to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction by keeping.
The order impugned, as such does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction of this Court.
The appeal hence is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.2.2020/M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court Single Bench was correct in dismissing the writ petition on disputed questions of fact not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Ram Naresh Chaturvedi
State of U.P.
Samit Gopal
Govind Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
