Dismissed

Priyanka Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2022WRIA/3847/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged termination of her contractual employment by the University Registrar. The court held that despite the petitioner not defending herself against allegations, she was granted an opportunity to reply which she neglected. Her conduct, including resorting to media and bypassing internal channels, harmed the University's interest.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the petitioner against the termination of her services was dismissed without any interference in the impugned order dated 31.01.2022.

Priyanka Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3847 of 2022 Petitioner :- Priyanka Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Kant Mishra,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rohit Pandey

¶3

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shashi Kant Mishra, learned counsels for the petitioner and Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1.

¶5

The petitioner has approached this court challenging the order dated 31.01.2022 passed by Registrar of Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj Kanpur University, Kanpur, respondent no. 3 whereby services of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground of filing of the complaint against the recruitment cell of the University.

¶6

The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis on 22.10.2021 on the post of Assistant Professor for the subject of English in the University. The petitioner has earlier approached this court by way of Writ Petition No. 880 of 2022 whereby she raised her grievance regarding discrimination in marks awarded in selection. The same is pending.

¶7

In the meantime, the petitioner was issued notice dated 12.01.2022 by the Registrar of the University, respondent no. 3, alleging that the petitioner has approached the electronic mass media / newspaper alleging commission of malpractice in the process of selection. It was alleged in the notice that she has also sent a complaint to the Hon'ble Governor directly which is against the disciplinary rules. The petitioner submitted her reply to the aforesaid notice on 15.01.2022 stating that the Registrar should specify which Code of Conduct was violated by her. It was further stated that University has not taken any step against Dr. Pankaj Yadav, who also challenged process of recruitment through various RTI applications against the University.

¶8

The Registrar of the University issued notice dated 20.01.2022 directing the petitioner to submit her reply by 22.01.2022 in the chamber of the respondent no. 2, The Vice Chancellor, explaining her conduct regarding the complaint made to the Governor and whey she has resorted to media against the

¶9

University. The petitioner again submitted her reply to the notice dated 20.02.2022 wherein she repeated the contents of reply dated 15.01.2022. Thereafter, she made representation to the Vice-Chancellor against the Registrar and finally the Registrar of the University by the order dated 31.01.2022 has terminated contract of service of the petitioner relying upon Clause 14 and Clause 8 of the agreement with the University. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this court.

¶10

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was required to be given opportunity of hearing by way of departmental proceedings and after inquiry only the service of the petitioner could have been terminated.

¶11

Learned Senior counsel for the respondent-University has pointed out that the petitioner has not disputed the contents of the notice given to her and in the reply, she has only made allegations and not defended herself. Therefore, allegations made against her in the notice issued by the University are proved to be corrected. He has further pointed out Clause 14 of the contract which shows that the services of a contractual employee can be terminated on the ground of indiscipline, negligence in duty and misconduct against the University, after giving opportunity of hearing. He has submitted that opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and she has availed the same, but could not defend herself from the allegation.

¶12

After hearing the rival submissions, it is clear that the petitioner has resorted to acts which are detrimental to the interest and reputation of the University. Being an employee of the University, it was not open for her to have resorted to electronic and mass media for redressal of her grievance. She has also made complaint against the Registrar of the University to the Governor directly which should have been sent through proper channel.

¶13

In view of the above facts, it does not appears that the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing and her conduct shows that her presence in the University would not be in the academic interest of the University. No interference is required in the impugned order, which is in accordance with the contract of service of the petitioner with the University.

¶14

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 26.4.2022 / Rohit

¶16

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.05.04 17:52:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Priyanka Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sapna Maurya Vs University Grants Commission and 2 Others

C/M Nehru Junior High School and 12 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Satya Prakash Sharma and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Committee of Management, Seth Teerath Prasad Rameshwar Prasad Purv Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shailendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. 5 Others

Reshmi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others