Allowed

Namwar Prasad v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2022WRIA/19651/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an ex parte order rejecting the petitioner's promotion claim as Assistant Clerk, holding that the petitioner was not heard before the decision. The matter was remanded for a fresh order after hearing the petitioner and the Committee of Management.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 2.11.2022 set aside; fresh order to be passed after hearing petitioner and Committee of Management.

Namwar Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19651 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Namwar Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jamil Ahamad Azmi,Mariyam Azmi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Priya Ranjan Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Jamil Ahamad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajay Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Advocate assisted by Sri Priya Ranjan Rai, learned counsel for the Committee of Management.

¶6

Challenge has been raised to the order dated 2.11.2022 passed by DIOS, Azamgarh. By that order the said authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Assistant Clerk at the institution, Gandhi Inter College, Azamgarh.

¶7

Merits of the claim made by the petitioner apart, primarily, challenge has been raised on the strength of pleadings made in paragraph no.12 of the writ petition. It is thus stated the petitioner was not issued any notice before his claim came to be rejected. Here it may be noted, earlier the Committee of Management of the said institution had itself proposed the promotion of the petitioner. Later upon hearing the Committee of Management, the DIOS concerned has rejected the claim of the petitioner occasioned by certain other litigation and earlier order as also some criminal history noted in the order. However, it is not disputed by the State-respondents that the petitioner was not heard.

¶8

On such pleading, instruction has been called from the State.

¶9

Today, it has been stated the notice of hearing preceding to the impugned order was sent to the Committee of Management of the institution through e mail mode. The written instructions do not indicate any communication made to the petitioner in that regard.

¶10

Sri Awasthi, learned counsel for the Committee of Management would also contend the Committee of Management had received the notice through e mail mode. He would vehemently contend that the petitioner has no right to promotion, at this stage.

¶11

Such being the fact brought before this Court, it remains

¶12

undisputed that petitioner has remained unheard, that despite the fact his valuable right has been affected by the ex parte decision thus made.

¶13

In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending. The impugned order dated 2.11.2022 is set aside.

¶14

Respondent no.3 is directed to pass fresh order after hearing the petitioner as also the Committee of Management within a period of two months from today.

¶15

The petitioner may treat the impugned order as a notice issued to him and submit his reply to the reasons contained in the impugned order alongwith copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today.

¶16

Accordingly, the petition stands allowed .

¶17

Order Date :- 12.12.2022

¶18

Deepika

¶19

Digitally signed by DEEPIKA SINGH Date: 2022.12.13 17:18:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Namwar Prasad v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namwar Prasad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Manoj Kumar Gupta and 14 Others Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Anju and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Priyanka Rai and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sonal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rama Shanker Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Brajpal Singh Vs U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Boardand 5 Others