Allowed

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

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2022WRIA/19366/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the second termination order issued by the Committee of Management without obtaining prior approval from the Board despite admission of the lapse. The petitioner is directed to continue service and retain the officiating charge of Principal pending Board approval.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 24.09.2022 is quashed. Petitioner continues in service with the officiating charge of Principal pending Board approval.

Mukat Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19366 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Mukat Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhay Pratap Singh,Harsh Vardhan Gupta,Sr. Advocate

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Kumar Chand,Shyam Sunder

¶6

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Harsh Vardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Prakash Chandra Pathak, learned counsel appeared for Committee of Management and, Shri Ajay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶8

Challenge has been raised to the order dated 24.09.2022 passed by Manager, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Inter College, Bilaspur, Gautam Budh Nagar, terminating the services of the petitioner. On that date, the petitioner was a regular Assistant Teacher officiating as Principal of the said institution.

¶9

Earlier, the petitioner visited with the following similar termination order dated 21.07.2022:

¶10

" पቚኔषक ,

¶11

पबन्धक

¶12

डडा० रडाजቚኔन ् पसडाद इण्टर कडालቚኔज

¶13

वविलडासपपुर , गगौतमबपु्ቍगनर ।

¶14

सቚኔविडा मम ,

¶15

शቦኍ मपुकपुट ससिሺह ( वनलममबत कडाररविडाहक पधडानडाचडारर )

¶16

डडा० रडाजቚኔन ् पसडाद इण्टर कडालቚኔज वविलडासपपुर

¶17

गगौतमबपु्ቍगनर ।

¶18

पतडािሺक / शशून्र

¶19

वदनडािሺक - 21.07.2022

¶20

वविषरयः सቚኔविडा समडाव቎ኌ कቚኔ समबन्ध मम

¶21

आपकቚኔ सखिलडाफ जजो वशकडारतम पडा቎ኌ हहई थቦኍ सजसकडा आपकजो वቛኌतቦኍर कडारण बतडाओ नजोवटस जडािሺच सवमवत ककी आख्रडा 08.07.2022 कቚኔ उपरडान्त वदनडािሺक 11.07.2022 मቚኔ वदरडा गरडा थडा , नजोवटस पडा቎ኌ करनቚኔ कቚኔ उपरडान्त भቦኍ आपनቚኔ अपनቦኍ तरफ सቚኔ वनधडा र रत अविसध मम कजोई उ्ቈर नहቦኍ वदरडा , आपकडा पडाथरनडापत समर बढडानቚኔ कቚኔ सलरቚኔ उवचत नहቦኍ पडारडा गरडा क्रजोवक आप इस अविसध मቚኔ लगडातडार वविदडालर आरहቚኔ हहै। ऐसቦኍ मसथवत मम आपकቚኔ सखिलडाफ सभቦኍ आरजोप सस्ቍ हजोतቚኔ हहै और आपकቚኔ वविरूध सविर सममवत रह वनण र सलरडा गरडा हहै वक आपककी सቚኔविडारम तत्कडाल पभडावि सቚኔ समडा቎ኌ कर दቦኍ जडाए। इसቦኍसलरቚኔ आपककी सቚኔविडारम समडा቎ኌ करतቚኔ हहरቚኔ आपकजो आदቚኔवशत वकरडा जडातडा हहै वक आप शቦኍ सपुरቚኔश चन ् शमडार कडाररविडाहक पधडानडाचडारर कजो वविदडालर कडा वविसध अनपुकशूल चडाजर दቚኔ दቚኔ। "

¶22

Against that termination order, the petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ - A No. 12283 of 2022 (Mulakat Singh vs. State of U.P. & 5 Ors.) . It was allowed by the following order dated 23.08.2022:

¶23

"Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Harsh Vardhan Gupta for the petitioner, Sri Ramesh Pundir, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Shyam Sunder for respondent no.6, Sri Krishna Kumar Chand, learned counsel for the Board and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶24

Amongst others, it has been submitted that the termination order dated 21.7.2022 has been passed by the Committee of Management/respondent no.6 without prior approval of the Board under Section 21 of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, 1982. Also, the suspension order itself had lapsed in absence of approval granted to it within sixty days as required under Section 16G (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

¶25

While, the second ground may have required a counter affidavit to be filed, insofar as, the first ground of challenge has been raised, there is no quarrel between the parties.

¶26

Learned counsel for the Committee of Management states prior approval has remained from being obtained by the Committee of Management before the impugned order came to be passed on 21.7.2022.

¶27

In view of above, no purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 21.7.2022 is quashed. All consequential may arise. It is left open to the parties to proceed strictly in accordance with law."

¶28

Ostensibly, in compliance of the said order, present communication has been received by the petitioner. It reads as below:

¶29

" पቚኔषक ,

¶30

पबन्धक डडा०रडाजቚኔन पसडादइण्टरकडालቚኔज वविलडासपपुर , गगौतमबपु्ቍगनर।

¶31

सቚኔविडामम ,

¶32

शቦኍमपुकपुटससिሺह ( कडाररविडाहकपधडानडाचडारर / सहडारकअधरडापक ) डडा०रडाजቚኔन पसडादइण्टरकडालቚኔजवविलडासपपुर गगौतमबपु्ቍगनर।

¶33

वदनडािሺक - 24.09.2022

¶34

पतडािሺक /

¶35

वविषरयःसቚኔविडासमडाव቎ኌकቚኔसमबन्धमम :

¶36

आपकቚኔसखिलडाफजजोपशूविरममनविवनरपुकसहडारकअधरडापककसቚኔअविहैधधनविसशूलቦኍ , वविदडालरकडाधनअपनቚኔ वनजቦኍपरजोगममलቚኔनडा , छडातफण्डककडासरकडारቦኍगबनविछडातकसቚኔअविहैधफकीसविसशूलቦኍकቚኔजजोआरजोपहहैविह सभቦኍआरजोपआपपरअभቦኍभቦኍरथडावितहहैरቚኔआरजोपमडाननቦኍरउचचन्ररडालरएव ि वकसቦኍभቦኍसकम असधकडारቦኍቛኌडारडाखिमण्डतनहቦኍवकरቚኔगरቚኔहहै।पबन्धसवमवतቛኌडारडाबनडाईगरቦኍजडािሺचसवमवतनቚኔभቦኍअपनቦኍजडािሺच आख्रडामቚኔसभቦኍआरजोपकककीपपुवषककीहहै। अतयःइन्हहआरजोपककቚኔआधडारपरआपककीतत्कडालपभडाविसቚኔमशूलपदसቚኔसቚኔविडासमडाव቎ኌ ( बखिडारसत ) ककीजडातቦኍ हहै। "

¶37

Plainly, the Committee of Management has again chosen to pass a dismissal order without prior approval of the Board. On being confronted with that situation, Shri Pathak has submitted, the Committee of Management is awaiting the necessary approval of the Board. It made proposal to the DIOS (to terminate the services of the petitioner), on 23.09.2022. In turn, the DIOS made his report on that proposal to the Board on 29.09.2022. On further query, Shri Pathak would fairly state, the Board has yet not passed any order approving the proposal made by the Committee of Management.

¶38

In fact, upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it transpires, the Board has yet not issued any notice pursuant to the proposal received by them. There is no doubt as to the law in this regard. The punishment order seeking to terminate the services of the teaching faculty at the institution may come into effect only upon the proposal made by Committee of Management to award such punishment to a teaching faculty being approved by the Board. That principle of law is also admitted to the Committee of Management as has been fairly acknowledged by Shri Pathak.

¶39

That being the position in law, it is wholly unacceptable that the communication dated 24.09.2022 came to be issued with a contrary intent to terminate the services of the petitioner forthwith from the date of that communication itself. Clearly, the Committee of Management has adopted a dual stand. Before the statutory authorities, it has represented so as to claim

¶40

compliance of law by only sending a proposal to terminate the services of the petitioner. At the same time, being cognizant of the fact that no approval could have been granted on 24.09.2022 i.e. following the date it had sent the proposal to the DIOS and without receipt of any communication of approval granted by the Board, it proceeded to issued the the impugned communication to the petitioner terminating his services, forthwith.

¶41

The facts noted above make it plain that the Committee of Management has proceeded in defiance of law. Since the stand of Committee of Management (on facts) is also clear and it is admitted to the Committee of Management that as on date, the Board has not approved the proposal dated 23.09.2022 made by it to terminate the services of the petitioner, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage. The agony of the petitioner must end now.

¶42

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 24.09.2022 is quashed. Let the petitioner continue in service together with officiating charge of Principal during the pendency of the proposal before the Board. All consequential relief may follow.

¶43

Order Date :- 1.12.2022 Prakhar

¶44

Digitally signed by PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.12.02 10:29:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukat 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

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mukesh Tiwari and 16 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Dhirendra Pratap Ojha and 4 Others Vs State of U P and Another

Girish Chandra and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahipal Singh Vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijendra Kumar Vs State of U P and 3 Others