Allowed

C/M Shri Gandhi Rashtriya Vidyalaya Inter College Thru. Its Manager Ram Ratan Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Secondary Education and 4 Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2024/1285/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order appointing an authorized controller at a college. The Court held that Section 16 D of the U.P. Act of 1921 mandates considering the institution's reply before appointment. Finding the Government ignored the reply despite issuing a show-cause notice, the order was quashed as ultra vires.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 27.12.2023 appointing the authorized controller is quashed. Liberty granted to respondents to pass fresh orders strictly adhering to Section 16 D of the Act.

C/M Shri Gandhi Rashtriya Vidyalaya Inter College… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:12794

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1285 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- C/M Shri Gandhi Rashtriya Vidyalaya Inter College Thru. Its Manager Ram Ratan Gupta And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Secondary Education And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mukund Madhava Asthana

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 5.

¶7

Mr. Mukund Madhav Asthana, Advocate has been heard as intervener in terms of Chapter XXII Rule 5 A of the Alahabad High Court Rules, 1952 on behalf of the rival of Committee of Finance Management.

¶8

The petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.12.2023 passed by the State Government appointing authorized Controller in which the institution in question.

¶9

Short ground of challenge is that while passing the impugned order, the concerned authority has completely ignored the petitioners' reply submitted by the petitioner in terms of Section 16 D (4) of the aforesaid Act which is a mandatory statutory stipulation.

¶10

Learned State Counsel has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners with the submission that an opportunity of hearing as required under the statutory provision was provided to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order. He seeks further time to obtain instruction in this matter.

¶11

However, as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Others v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Others reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 that an order impugned has to stand on its own footing and cannot be supplemented by an affidavit, this petition is being adjudicated upon at the admission stage itself on the basis of the impugned order.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is

¶13

quite evident that authorized controller in any intermediate institution can be appointed in terms of Section 16 D of the Act of 1921. Section 16 D (4) of the Act clearly stipulates that an opportunity of hearing is required to be provided to the Committee of Management of institution and the cause shown is required to be considered by the State Government prior to appointment of authorized controller.

¶14

In the present case, a bare perusal of the impugned order makes it evident that there is absolutely no consideration of reply submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notice.

¶15

In the considered opinion of this Court, providing of opportunity of hearing cannot be relegated to an empty formality. The very purpose of affording an opportunity of hearing by issuance of a show cause notice is for considering the reply submitted by the institution concerned. Such a statutory provision having not been followed clearly renders the impugned order dated 27.12.2023 vitiated, which is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of a certiorari granting liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders, if required, but only after strictly adhering to the conditions indicated in Section 16 D of the Act of 1921.

¶16

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself.

¶17

Parties to bear their own costs.

¶18

Order Date :- 8.2.2024 Manoj K.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

C/M Shri Gandhi Rashtriya Vidyalaya Inter College Thru. Its Manager Ram Ratan Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Secondary Education and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Shri Gandhi Rashtriya Vidyalaya Inter College Thru. Its Manager Ram Ratan Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Secondary Education and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suresh Chandra and 33 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Dairy Development, Lko. and 3 Others

Anjani Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Medical Education Lko. and 3 Others

Santusthi College of Nursing, Mirzapur Thru. Director Dr. Ritu Garg Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. of Medical Health, Lucknow and 5 Others

Ram Dhan Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance, Lko. and Others

Munindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Madhyamik Shiksha Lko. and 6 Others

Aradhya Kaustubh Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Special Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others