Allowed

Alok Rai and Others v. State of U.P.and Others

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2020SPLA/651/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This special appeal challenges the declaration of illegality in a selection process due to lack of prior approval. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the single bench judgment on equitable grounds, dismissing the writ petition without examining merits.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed. The Single Bench judgment is set aside. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Alok Rai and Others Vs State of U.P.and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Reserved on – 27.1.2020 Delivered on – 29.1.2020

¶3

Chief Justice's Court

¶4

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 651 of 2012

¶5

Appellant :- Alok Rai And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- A.K. Malviya, Satish Chandra Mishra, Sri Ravikant Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., R.C. Dwivedi, Vivek Kumar Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Govind Mathur, Chief Justice Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.

¶7

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J. under Chapter VII Rule 1(2) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952)

¶8

This appeal is preferred to examine correctness of the judgment dated 30th November, 2011 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 20704 of 2011.

¶9

In brief, facts of the case are that the Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College, Revatipur District Ghazipur, an aided institution, invited applications from an eligible candidates to be recruited in Class IV service. The process of selection was initiated without having prior approval from the District Inspector of Schools as required under Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-petitioners Gautam Singh, Vineet Kumar Rai and Ram Pravesh Paswan preferred a petition for writ before a learned Single Bench of this Court. Learned Single Bench accepted the petition for writ by arriving at a conclusion that the process of selection was bad as no prior approval was taken before initiating the process of selection and also on the count that the person under whom signatures process of selection was initiated was facing suspension.

¶10

In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on

¶11

-2-

¶12

behalf of the appellants is that learned Single Bench erred while accepting the writ petition and declaring the entire selection process illegal as a post facto sanction was given by the District Inspector of Schools. It is also stated that the suspension of the officer concerned also stood revoked in light of the fact that no such suspension could have remained in currency after a lapse of sixty days. It is also stated that the learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that the respondent-petitioners had no locus to challenge the process of selection. As a matter of fact, the respondentpetitioners challenged the appointment in an earlier writ petition and that failed as such they had no right to question correctness of the process of selection again by way of filing a petition for writ.

¶13

Per contra, as per learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-petitioners, the petitioners had a right to question correctness of the entire process of selection. So far as the earlier petition for writ is concerned, that shall not pertaining to the process of selection but with regard to other issues relating to the eligibility and qualification pertaining to the post concerned. It is also stated that the subsequent permission granted by the District Inspector of Schools is of no consequence as the mandatory requirement of Regulation 101 of Chapter III is to have a prior approval. The procedure given under the Rules is required to be adhered strictly and any violation of that makes the entire process of selection bad.

¶14

Heard learned counsels and examined the facts of the case.

¶15

It is not in dispute that the instant one is second round of litigation pertaining to the same process of selection. The petitioners-respondents earlier preferred petition for writ that came to be dismissed. The respondent-petitioners as such on acceptance of the writ petition and dismissal of this appeal are not going to get any benefit in the matter. The appellants were employed much back in the year 2008 on the post concerned. They are still continuing as such. It is also a fact admitted that there is no allegation in the entire petition for writ with regard to any unfairness in the process of selection except having post facto approval

¶16

-3-

¶17

instead of the prior approval. The issue as to whether the grant of post facto approval validate the process of selection initiated without having prior approval in no manner give any benefit or protect any right of the respondent-petitioners but that would certainly adversely effect the appellants who are serving in Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College, Revatipur District Ghazipur from last more than a decade.

¶18

In view of it, without examining merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Bench as the equity demands for that. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 30th November, 2011 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 20704 of 2011 is set aside. The writ petition preferred by the writ petitioners stands dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 29.1.2020 VMA

¶20

(Samit Gopal, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)

Alok Rai and Others v. State of U.P.and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Rai and Others 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

Upendra Sharma Sub-Inspector Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Surendra Kumar Katiyar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Surendra Prasad Mishra Vs Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Adj and Others

State of U.P. and Another Vs Nand Lal

U.P.S.R.T.C., Lko and 3 Others Vs Nikhil Sharma and Another

Kaushalendra Sharma Vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad