Quashed

Neetu Singhal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2022WRIA/14637/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order stopping salary payment to the petitioner. The High Court held the order unsustainable as it was ex-parte and lacked jurisdiction due to pending proceedings regarding the petitioner's appointment rights before the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner; proceedings pending before Director of Education directed to be concluded expeditiously.

Neetu Singhal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14637 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Neetu Singhal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sankalp Narain,Samarath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aalok Singh,Bheem Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Bheem Singh, learned counsel for the intervener/caveator and; learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

Challenge has been raised to the order dated 26.5.2022 passed by respondent no.2/District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh whereby the said respondent has proceeded to stop salary payment to the petitioner.

¶7

As to the rights, petitioner claims to have been appointed Assistant Teacher in the year 2012 at the institution Om Prakash Mittal College, Aligarh. It is also a fact, certain proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under Section 16-E(10) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Those are pending before respondent no.2/Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Lucknow. Merely because the DIOS Aligarh perceives delay in conclusion of those proceedings, he has passed the exparte impugned order providing for stoppage of salary payment to the petitioner. In absence of adjudication of rights of the petitioner as to appointment and in face of pendency of such proceedings before the competent authority i.e. the Director of Education, plainly, the DIOS lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Even otherwise the impugned order passed is wholly ex-parte .

¶8

In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is hereby quashed, insofar as it relates to the petitioner. At the same time, in view of the admission on part of the petitioner of the pendency of the proceedings before the Director of Education under Section 16-E(10) of the Act, it is provided, it may remain open to the Director of Education to seek early conclusion of those proceedings, as expeditiously as possible, after hearing all necessary parties.

¶9

With the aforesaid observation, present petition stands disposed of .

¶10

Order Date :- 9.11.2022 Prakhar

¶11

Digitally signed by PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.11.10 10:22:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neetu Singhal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neetu Singhal v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Vijay Kumar Srivastava and 3 Others Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Jahnvi Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mahendra Singh Nain Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Adesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vidyawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shikha Goswami Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others