Allowed

Rahul Ranjan Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2022SPLA/675/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal allowed. The High Court held that the District Inspector of Schools acted without jurisdiction in directly ordering the appointment of a higher-ranked candidate who failed to join. The Court quashed the order and directed the inquiry papers to be forwarded to the Director of Secondary Education for a decision by the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 02.03.2022 passed by District Inspector of Schools quashed. Direction to forward enquiry papers and report to Director of Secondary Education for appropriate decision after hearing within

Rahul Ranjan Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 675 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Rahul Ranjan Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Krishan Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar,Nisheeth Yadav,Sandeep Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant; the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; and Sri C.B. Yadav, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Arun Kumar, for the respondent no.5.

¶6

This intra court appeal is against the judgment and order dated 22.09.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ A No. 5080 of 2022 by which the writ petition of the appellant has been dismissed.

¶7

The undisputed facts of the case are that appointments of temporary teachers were to be made in the institution concerned pursuant to a Government Order dated 24.07.2021. The Selection Committee constituted for preparing a panel of selected candidates for appointment on the advertised post placed the fifth respondent (Dr. Reeta Singh) higher than the writ petitioner (Rahul Ranjan Tripathi-appellant herein). However, the fifth respondent was not appointed. Rather, the writ petitioner was appointed on 11.12.2021. When the fifth respondent came to learn about the appointment of the writ petitioner, she made a representation. On her representation, the Director, by letter dated 03.02.2022, required the District Inspector of Schools, Kaushambi to hold an inquiry into the matter and submit a report. Pursuant to the letter dated 03.02.2022, the District Inspector of Schools held an enquiry and found that an offer of appointment was sent to Dr. Reeta Singh but the same returned unserved therefore, the petitioner (Rahul Ranjan Tripathi-appellant herein) was appointed. The District Inspector of Schools took the view that if the letter of appointment could not be served on Dr. Reeta Singh, she could not be blamed for not joining the post within the period provided in the offer of appointment. The District Inspector of Schools thus directed for appointment of Dr. Reeta Singh by order dated 02.03.2022 impugned in Writ A No. 5080 of 2022.

¶8

The order dated 02.03.2022 of the District Inspector of Schools was challenged by the appellant through Writ A No. 5080 of

¶9

After hearing both sides, the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that a reasonable time ought to have been given to the appointee to join the post and as it appears that the letter offering appointment could not be served on the appointee and that she was admittedly placed higher in the select panel, the order directing issuance of letter of appointment to her called for no interference.

¶10

The learned counsel for the appellant has questioned the order of the learned Single Judge on two grounds, namely, that there was no proper enquiry at the level of the District Inspector of Schools with regard to Dr. Reeta Singh having not joined despite full knowledge of the offer of appointment and, secondly, the District Inspector of Schools held no jurisdiction to hold the appointment of the writ petitioner invalid and direct for appointment of Dr. Reeta Singh, particularly, when he was only requested to submit a report to the Director.

¶11

To buttress his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to Government Order dated 24th July, 2021, at page 91 of the paper book, to demonstrate that the appointments concerned were made under the Government Order dated 14th July, 2021 and any issue relating to selection and appointment of the candidates selected had to be addressed by the Director and none else.

¶12

It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the counter-affidavit submitted by the management in writ proceedings disclosed that Dr. Reeta Singh was fully aware about the letter of appointment having been issued to her requiring her to join the institution by a particular date and that she had been whatsapping messages to the management to give her time to join so that she could obtain no objection certificate from the institution where she was already serving. Once from the contents of the counter-affidavit of the management it was established that Dr. Reeta Singh was fully aware that she was required to join the institution, failure on her part to join the institution within the period specified, empowered the management to offer appointment to the candidate next in the select panel, namely, the writ petitioner. It has been submitted that this aspect of the matter has been glossed over by the learned Single Judge and was also not accorded proper consideration by the District Inspector of Schools. It has thus been submitted that since it is the Director, who alone could have taken decision on the basis of material collected during the course of enquiry, it would be appropriate to direct the Director to accord fresh consideration to the issue after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties to produce relevant documents/evidence in respect of their rival claims.

¶13

Sri C.B. Yadav, who appears for the fifth respondent, submits that it is proved on record that the fifth respondent was placed higher in the select panel; that the appointment letter dispatched to the fifth respondent was not served upon her as the letter returned unserved; that the fifth respondent made a complaint in respect of deprivation of her right to appointment; and that acting on the complaint, the Director issued a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to hold enquiry therefore, in such circumstances, the order of the District Inspector of Schools, upon finding that the letter of appointment was not served upon the fifth respondent, cannot be faulted.

¶14

We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record carefully.

¶15

There is no dispute that the fifth respondent was placed higher in the panel of selected candidates and the appointment of the writ petitioner (the appellant herein) could only be in a case where the fifth respondent does not join pursuant to the offer of appointment. The main issue therefore is whether the fifth respondent despite offer of appointment did not join the post within the period specified.

¶16

The case of the writ petitioner (appellant herein) is that the enquiry that was conducted by the District Inspector of Schools did not accord consideration to all the material on record and there was no proper opportunity of hearing. It is also the case of the petitioner that the enquiry report should have been forwarded to the Director, who alone was competent to take a decision on the report, therefore, the order of the District Inspector of Schools is without jurisdiction.

¶17

We notice from the Government Order dated 24th July, 2021 that questions relating to appointment/selection of teachers under the Scheme were to be decided by the Director of Education (Madhyamik).

¶18

From the record, it also appears that complaints were addressed to the Director who had called upon the District Inspector of Schools to submit his report. The District Inspector of Schools instead of submitting a report has itself passed the order. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools is without jurisdiction. He should have forwarded his report to the Director for taking appropriate decision. For the reason above, we deem it appropriate to allow this appeal. The order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, which fails to notice this aspect of the matter, is set aside. Writ A No. 5080 of 2022 filed by the appellant seeking quashing of the order dated 02.03.2022 is hereby

¶19

allowed. The order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Kaushambi is hereby quashed and a direction is issued to the District Inspector of Schools, Kaushambi to forward all the papers relating to the enquiry conducted by it to the Director of Secondary Education within a period of two weeks from today along with his report in respect of the said enquiry. Acting on the said report, the Director of Secondary Education shall provide opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned including the petitioner, the fifth respondent (Dr. Reeta Singh) and the Committee of Management of the institution concerned and take appropriate decision, as per law, preferably, within next four weeks.

¶20

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶21

Order Date :- 9.11.2022 Sunil Kr Tiwari

¶22

Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR TIWARI Date: 2022.11.14 14:16:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Ranjan Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Ranjan Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Saleem Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Anup Kumar Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Renoo Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gramya Parishad Chakshaym Kiraon and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. through Its Secretary, (Institutional Finance and Registration) and 12 Others

Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and Another Vs Ridhi Yadav and Another

Mahendra Kumar Singh and 7 Others Vs Smt. Aradhana Shukla