Allowed

Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2024/1422/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the cancellation of his Assistant Teacher appointment via an order passed one day after appointment without any opportunity of hearing. The High Court quashed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.01.2024 quashed; liberty to respondent to pass fresh orders after hearing petitioner.

Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:16978

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1422 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Education And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Omkar Singh,Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Tripathi

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 & 2 and Mr. Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite parties 3 and 4.

¶8

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 08.01.2024 whereby petitioner's appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher has been cancelled on ground of his educational qualification certificates being not in accordance with the Recruitment Rules.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that although impugned order has been passed only a day after the appointment order dated 07.01.2024 was issued but neither any opportunity of hearing nor even a show cause notice was ever issued to petitioner to clarify his stand.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties have submitted that the order impugned has been passed only a day after issuance of appointment letter and is covered under Rule 23 of relevant Rules of 1981 mentioned in the impugned order itself.

¶11

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record particularly the impugned order, it is evident that neither any show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner prior to passing of impugned order which even

¶12

otherwise has been issued after issuance of appointment in his favour.

¶13

Considering aforesaid facts, the impugned order dated 08.01.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass fresh orders but only after considering reply of petitioner and affording opportunity of hearing to him.

¶14

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

Order Date :- 26.2.2024 kvg/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Laxmi Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development Deptt. U.P. and 6 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 4 Others

Swatantrata Sangram Senani Bhagauti Prasad Yadav Institute of Medical Science,Thru.Manager Rajkumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Technical Education, Lucknow and Others

Girish Kumar Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Diary Development Lko. and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. and 3 Others

Rama Kant Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another