Allowed¶12

Saroj Devi v. District Basic Education Officer and 4 Others

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2020WRIA/6894/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Saroj Devi v. District Basic Education Officer And 4 Others, WRIT - A No. 6894 of 2020, decided 16.12.2020 by Yashwant Varma, J. Petition allowed following Writ-A No. 5540 of 2020 (C/M Sri Durga Ji Purva Madhyamik Balika Jamin v. State of U.P.); impugned orders dated 26.06.2020 and 27.06.2020 quashed. Keywords: Basic Education Act; Commissioner Azamgarh Division; enquiry without jurisdiction; quashing of orders; liberty for independent enquiry; C.S.C.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned orders dated 26 June 2020 and 27 June 2020 quashed and set aside, with liberty reserved to the first respondent to initiate an independent enquiry if the facts and circumstances warrant and justify. ¶12

Saroj Devi Vs District Basic Education Officer and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6894 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Saroj Devi

¶4

Respondent :- District Basic Education Officer And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Raj Singh,Adarsh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for parties.

¶7

Learned counsel for parties are ad idem that the issues raised in this petition stand concluded in favour of the petitioners in light of the judgment rendered by a learned Judge of the Court in C/M Sri Durga Ji Purva Madhyamik Balika Jamin And Another v. State Of U P And 4 Others [Writ-A No. 5540 of 2020 decided on 14.10.2020] .

¶8

The issue itself relates to certain enquiries which were initiated by the State respondents based on orders passed by the Commissioner Azamgarh Division, the third respondent herein. Noticing that the said authority would have no jurisdiction concerning matters relating to educational institutions governed by an independent statute, the learned Judge in C/M Sri Durgaji held thus:-

¶9

"The scheme of the Act, as extracted and referred to above, makes it clear that the Basic Education Act was enacted as a complete code for governing the Basic Education in the State of Uttar Pradesh and conferred the powers on separate authorities under the Act without conferring any authority whatsoever on the Commissioner or the Administrative Authorities other than those specified under the Acts and the Rules. It is well settled that the creation of statutory bodies by various Acts and the Rules for discharging specific functions is aimed at development of systems of checks and balances and aims at reducing the overlapping executive interferences and thus try to overcome the malady of overlapping executive functions. I have no hesitation in holding that once the Commissioner did not have any authority under the scheme of the Act, the initiation of the enquiry by constituting a four member Committee was wholly unwarranted and was a clear interference in the functioning of the statutory authorities conferred with the powers under the Act and thus wholly without jurisdiction.

¶10

… Similarly, the directions of the Secretary Education based upon the said

¶11

recommendations of the enquiry Committee also do not demonstrate any independent application of mind and has also transgressed the statutory limits conferred upon the State in directing initiations of FIRs and termination of the Teachers. The Secretary Education has clearly erred in issuing the directions for lodging of the FIRs and for termination of the Teachers without there being any powers conferred upon him under the Act and that too based upon an enquiry which has already been held to be illegal and thus I have no hesitation in quashing the directions issued by the Secretary and as contained in the orders dated 17.2.2020. I have also no hesitation in holding that the show cause notices have been issued without any application of mind by the respondent no. 5 and only on the dictation of the respondent no. 1 and thus are liable to be dismissed on that ground alone."

¶12

In view of the aforesaid, it is conceded that the impugned orders would not sustain. Accordingly the instant writ petition is allowed . The impugned orders dated 26 June 2020 and 27 June 2020 are hereby quashed and set aside. This order however shall not preclude the first respondent from initiating an enquiry independently if the facts and circumstances so warrant and justify.

¶13

Order Date :- 16.12.2020 Arun K. Singh

Saroj Devi v. District Basic Education Officer and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Devi v. District Basic Education Officer and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subash Chandra Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Devendra Kumar Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Anurag Shukla Vs U.P. S.S.S.C. Commission, and 2 Others

Abhishek Sahoo and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Pustam Patel Vs District Basic Eduacation and 4 Others

Vijay Kumar Yadav Vs District Basic Education and 4 Others