Disposed

Satyapal Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2020WRIA/6386/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging cancellation of appointment as School Principal due to alleged non-deposit of funds. Court set aside order passed without hearing and directed authorities to afford an opportunity of hearing to petitioner and other parties.

What did the court decide?

Granted opportunity of hearing to petitioner; directed authorities to pass fresh order within four weeks; order impugned stood suspended.

Satyapal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6386 of 2020 Petitioner :- Satyapal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sharad Chandra

¶3

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶4

This petition is directed against an order dated 16.12.2019 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Etawah which records that since petitioner has not ensured deposit of Rs. 1,74,000/- in the account of the institution as such he is not entitled to continue as the principal and the signatures of respondent no. 6 have been attested for this purpose.

¶5

It is urged that respondent no. 6 is a part time teacher and that Rs. 1,74,000/- was not payable by the petitioner since such amount was with the committee of management. Reliance is placed upon an order passed by District Development Officer, Etawah on 3.1.2020 wherein facts are said to have been verified. This order records that the amount was to be deposited by the managing Committee. It is also urged that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before passing the order impugned.

¶6

Learned standing counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sharad Chandra appearing for the respondent no. 6 states that such factual issues can be examined by the Inspector at the first instance. It is stated that appointment of petitioner itself is not sustainable as it has been made under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 6 of 1978 after the institution itself was upgraded.

¶7

A perusal of the record would clearly go to show that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before passing the order. The question as to whether there existed any default on part of the petitioner in remaining deposit of Rs. 1,74,000/- was an issue on which petitioner ought to have been heard. It was not open for the authorities to cancel attestation of his signatures particularly when no opportunity of hearing had been given. Instead of keeping the petition pending it would be appropriate to require the Inspector to examine facts in light of above observations at the first instance.

¶8

In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent no. 4 to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the matter and also to consider the report of the

¶9

District Development Officer, Etawah dated 3.1.2020. An opportunity would also be given to the respondent nos. 5 & 6. The parties shall appear for such purposes before the Inspector on 5.10.2020. A fresh order would be passed in light of the observations made above by the Inspector and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶10

The order impugned dated 16.12.2019 shall remain subject to the fresh order to be passed by the Inspector.

¶11

Status quo with regard to working on the post of Principal shall continue and shall abide by the fresh order to be passed as indicated above.

¶12

The concerned Authority / Official shall verify the authenticity of computerized copy of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall act accordingly without waiting for submission of the certified copy of this order.

¶13

Order Date :- 21.9.2020 Arif

Satyapal Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyapal Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Jitendra Pal Singh and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sudhir Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

In the Matter of Goods of Late Vimla Devi Daughter Ofjhurai by Smt. Sunita Chadha Vs N.A.

Mohammad Sameer Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr Hem Prakash and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others