Disposed

Smt. Shashi Singh v. State of U P and 5 Others

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2022WRIA/2535/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ challenging termination of services and related inquiries affecting a teacher. It directed the management to forward the termination proposal to the Board for approval, holding that the Boards Act procedure likely applies to regularly selected candidates, mandating a hearing and expeditious final order on salary and service.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to ensure termination proposal is forwarded to the Board for approval within two weeks after petitioner files a copy of the order, subject to a final order by the Board within tw

Smt. Shashi Singh Vs State of U P and 5 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2535 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Shashi Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Tiwari,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Kumar Chand,Kushmondeya Shahi,Shambhavi Tiwari,Vivek Kumar Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri H.N. Singh learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.P. Sharma learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri K.K. Chand learned counsel for the Board and Ms. Shambhavi Tiwari learned counsel for the University.

¶6

Challenge has been raised to the order/communication dated 14.1.2022 issued by the DIOS Hathras requiring the management of the Institution Seth Harcharan Das Girls Inter College, Hathras to submit proposal regarding proceedings under Section 16E(10) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Intermediate Act'). Further challenge has been raised to the order dated 19.1.2022 issued by the Principal/Manager of that institution terminating the services of the petitioner.

¶7

Submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are two fold. Petitioner being a regularly selected candidate, the proceedings, if any, could have arisen under Section 21 of the U.P. Secondary Education (Service Selection Boards)Act 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Boards Act'). Accordingly read with U.P. Secondary Education Service and Commission (Procedure for Approval of Punishment) Regulations 1985, proceedings under Section 16E(10) of the Intermediate Act could not arise. For proceedings under the Boards Act, the

¶8

management may not have terminated the services of the petitioner except with prior approval of the Board. To that end, the DIOS could only have forwarded the proposal made by the management to the Board, with his appropriate report. As to the proceedings by the management, it has been submitted that the same are wholly contrary to law inasmuch as the same are wholly ex parte.

¶9

Third aspect of the matter noted above, may not engage the attention of this Court as the matter is to be considered by the Board. In absence of any dispute as to the fact or regular selection of the petitioner, by the Board, it is the provision of the Boards Act that would determine the procedure to be applied. That procedure does not appear to have been followed inasmuch as till date there is no order passed by the Board to approve or disapprove the action taken by the management.

¶10

Learned counsel for the University states that marksheet of the petitioner was found to be tampered. However, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that no opportunity was given by the University before such conclusions was drawn.

¶11

In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of with the following directions.

¶12

Subject to the petitioner filing a copy of this order before respondent No. 3 and 5 within a period of two weeks from today, those respondents shall ensure that the proposal to terminate the petitioner's service is forwarded to the Board, in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of compliance made by the petitioner.

¶13

Upon receipt of the proposal, the Board may proceed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law, after hearing all necessary parties including the University, as expeditiously as

¶14

possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the proposal.

¶15

While making final order, the Board may also pass appropriate order with respect to salary payment of the petitioner, if any.

¶16

Order Date :- 16.11.2022 Faraz

¶17

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.11.17 10:14:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Shashi Singh v. State of U P and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shashi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Shriprakash and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ankur Malik Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Km. Kiran Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Prieeti Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. Pallavi Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sughar Singh Rajpoot Vs State of U P and 7 Others