Allowed

Km. Rajni v. District Basic Education Officer and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2021WRIA/4795/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition in a case concerning the termination of her services as a Hindi teacher. The court held that the terminating order was unsustainable as it violated principles of natural justice due to lack of a hearing opportunity and was cryptic regarding the alleged fraud, thus setting it aside.

What did the court decide?

The impinged order dated 15.01.2021 terminating the petitioner's services was set aside with liberty to the respondent to pass a fresh order after a proper inquiry.

Km. Rajni Vs District Basic Education… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4795 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Km. Rajni Respondent :- District Basic Education Officer And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Durga Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Durga Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4.

¶6

The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 15.01.2021 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Hapur by which service of the petitioner has been terminated.

¶7

The petitioner was appointed as Hindi Teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidhyalaya, Dhaulana, Hapur by order dated 28.11.2013, copy of which is annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. The petitioner since the date of her appointment has been continuing as such.

¶8

It appears that some enquiry has been conducted in which petitioner and some other persons were found lacking essential qualification for being appointed as Teacher. Consequently, the District Basic Education Officer, Hapur by order dated 15.01.2021 dismissed the services of all the candidates including petitioner and name of petitioner is found at serial no.3 in the impugned order.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner possesses all essential qualification for being appointed as Teacher, and it is evident from the appointment letter of the petitioner that the selection committee found her eligible for appointment and selected her. He submits that the order impugned is punitive in nature, and therefore, a notice or opportunity of hearing should have been afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.

¶10

Further submission is that the impugned order reveals that it is cryptic as it does not give any reason as to how petitioner has adopted fraud means to obtain appointment.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a specific query was made to the

¶12

learned counsel for respondent no.1 to show as to whether any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, but he could not point out from the impugned order that any enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and petitioner was allowed to participate in it and was afforded opportunity of hearing before passing the order impugned.

¶13

Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable being in violation of principles of natural justice, and further the order impugned is cryptic and does not disclose any reason as to how the fraud has been committed by the petitioner in obtaining appointment.

¶14

Thus, for the reasons given above, the impugned order dated 15.01.2021, annexure 6 to the writ petition, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is set aside with liberty to respondent no.1District Basic Education Officer, Hapur, to pass fresh order after giving proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶15

The writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made above.

¶16

Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Sattyarth

Km. Rajni v. District Basic Education Officer and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Rajni v. District Basic Education Officer and 3 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

Sarvashakti Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Brahma Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bachchi Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Fenku Ram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shesh Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Avatar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others