Azhar Sultan Ahmad Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Court No. - 74

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4927 of 2020

Petitioner :- Azhar Sultan Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Samarath Singh,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Sankalp Narain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Birendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the order dated 19th February, 2020 whereby approval to selection and appointment of the petitioners have been denied by the District Inspector of Schools.

¶7

The basic ground raised as per paragraphs 27 of the writ petition is that the petitioners as well management of the institution have not been heard in the matter.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that minimum requirement for anyadministrative exercise that may have adverse civil consequences, is to provide at-least one opportunity of hearing to the person who could be aggrieved, by the competent authority. He further argued that the claim of opportunity of hearing becomes more important as earlier direction was issued by this court for disposal of the grievance of the petitioner by the District Inspector of Schools in writ petition filed by petitioners bearing writ petition no. 22772 of 2012 which was decided on 23rd January, 2020.

¶9

From perusal of the ordersheet of the present case it clearly transpires that while entertaining this writ petition, learned Standing Counsel was directed to have instructions in the matter as to whether petitioners were given any opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the order dated 19th February, 2020 or not. Today, learned Standing Counsel who is having instructions submits that prior approval for proceeding to hold selection and appointment in question was not taken by the management.

¶10

This according to me is only one of issues that touch the merit but the question as to opportunity of hearing whether was given or not for which instructions were sought, learned Standing Counsel concedes that

¶11

neither from the order it transpires that any opportunity was given to the petitioners or management nor, he has any instructions in that regard.

¶12

In view of above, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the authority which adversely affects the interest and rights of the petitioners and prejudices their claims, cannot be sustained. Thus notice for providing any opportunity of hearing both to the petitioners and management ought to have been given in the matter but the same is lacking and so the order impugned is clearly unsustainable.

¶13

In view of the above order dated 19th February, 2020 cannot be sustained in law and is hereby quashed.

¶14

The matter is remitted to the District Inspector of School to decide afresh after giving full opportunity to the petitioner to put up his claim and further full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as committee of management of the institution in question, within further period of two months from the date of production of this order before the competent authority.

¶15

Copy available on the official website of the shall be taken to be genuine one. However, petitioner shall supply certified copy also to the competent authority as and when issued.

¶16

Order Date :- 28.9.2020

¶17

Sanjeev

Azhar Sultan Ahmad v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azhar Sultan Ahmad v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiva Kant Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ranjeet Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ranjeet Singh Vs Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division and 5 Others

Momin Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and 5 Others

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another