Dismissed

Basic Shiksha Adhikari v. Ram Vriksha Yadav

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2023CMRA/347/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review application concerning service reinstatement, the court dismissed the petition. The application relied on later documents proving the applicant never obtained the contested degree, a fact unknown at the time of the original decision. The court held that subsequent evidence could not open review proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Review application dismissed; personal appearance of District Basic Education Officer dispensed with; counsel permitted to withdraw reinstatement statement.

Basic Shiksha Adhikari Vs Ram Vriksha Yadav — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:183355

¶2

Court No. - 52

¶3

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 347 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Basic Shiksha Adhikari Opposite Party :- Ram Vriksha Yadav Counsel for Applicant :- Archana Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ankit Kapoor

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the review applicant/respondent no.2, Shri Ankit Kapoor, learned counsel for the opposite party/petitioner and Shri Balmukund Singh, learned counsel for Deendayal Upadhyay University, Gorakhpur who put his appearance in pursuance to order dated 23.8.2023 passed in the instant review application. It is the admitted case of the review applicant that at the time of adjudication of the writ petition where no substantial evidence has been appended for substantiating the averments made in the counter afÏdavit.

¶7

Considering the rival submissions, the writ petition has already been allowed and the petitioner has been reinstated during pendency of the review application over the statement made by Smt. Archana Singh which has been prayed to withdraw by way of filing personal afÏdavit preferred by Dr. Santosh Kumar Upadhyay presently posted as District Basic Education OfÏcer, District Mau.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for University produced the original records which has been perused by this court wherein entries have been inserted after Sl. No./Roll No. 52 and the submission of the petitioner that he obtained the degree from Deen Dayal Upadhyay University, Gorakhpur wherein his name has been entered at Roll No./Sl. No.53 seems to be inserted later on. On the precise query made before learned counsel appearing for the University who is custodian of the original documents that what action has been initiated once it is found that the entries which has been manipulated in the

¶9

original record, which permitted the petitioner to prefer the petition as well as sought the appointment in the department of the responding authorities. Shri Balmukund Singh apprised the court again without any substantial document that the inquiry has already been initiated against the concerned ofÏcer but nothing has been finalised in shape of inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry OfÏcer disputed by the competent authority of the University, no notice has been given to the petitioner.

¶10

The grounds for seeking review of the order dated 19.4.2023 is based on the records which were subsequently preferred alongwith review application and it is admitted fact on behalf of learned counsel appearing for review applicant that the substantial document which reflects that the petitioner never obtained the degree from the University and never studied in the concerned degree college are the subsequent documents which were not available at the time of adjudication of the writ petition.

¶11

Subsequent averments substantiated with the documents which were not available at the time of filing the counter afÏdavit in the writ petition, prayer made in the review application cannot be acceded.

¶12

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances review application is hereby dismissed .

¶13

Personal appearance of District Basic Education OfÏcer, Mau is hereby dispensed with. At the same time Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of review applicant is permitted to withdraw the statement upon which the petitioner has been reinstated in the service. The permission as granted will not amount any adverse action to be taken by the responding authorities for disturbing the reinstatement order passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶14

Order Date :- 21.9.2023 Rakesh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Basic Shiksha Adhikari v. Ram Vriksha Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basic Shiksha Adhikari v. Ram Vriksha Yadav

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

Lalli Devi Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Mohd. Raees Khan and 9 Others Vs Niranjan Singh and 5 Others

Kamlesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bhagauti Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandrahas Ramdayal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Sagar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others