Allowed

Vinay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Basic Education Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024/4810/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his Assistant Teacher appointment due to alleged document forgery without a hearing. The Court held that the impugned order was based only on prima facie satisfaction and lacked prior notice or opportunity to explain. A writ of certiorari quashed the order with liberty to pass a fresh one after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.05.2024 is quashed. Liberty granted to respondent to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and considering his reply.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44753

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4810 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Basic Education Deptt., Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neel Kamal Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh,Uday Veer Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no. 1, 3 & 5, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4.

¶8

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 28.05.2024 whereby petitioner's selection/appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher has been cancelled on the ground that prima facie the documents submitted by him were found to be forged.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a bare perusal of impugned order will make it evident that neither any show cause notice or even explanation was called for from petitioner prior to passing an order which ex facie is stigmatic in nature casting in aspersion upon petitioner. It is also submitted that the order even otherwise only indicates a prima facie satisfaction on the part of opposite parties without any subjective satisfaction on the basis of evidence.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that it was very well indicated even in appointment letter, the selection would stand automatically cancelled in case of any forgery or discrepancy having been established. It is submitted that the impugned order itself indicates that there was certain discrepancy found in the documents submitted by petitioner, upon verification and therefore in terms of conditions enumerated in the appointment letter, petitioner's selection has been cancelled for which no separate opportunity of hearing was required to be given.

¶11

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the impugned order, it is evident that petitioner's

¶12

selection/appointment has been cancelled on the ground that the documents submitted by him were found to be different/forged upon online verification. It is evident that the impugned order only records a prima facie satisfaction and not even a complete subjective satisfaction with regard to such a forgery having been committed by petitioner. Even otherwise the order does not indicate any prior notice or opportunity of hearing having been provided to petitioner in order to explain the alleged discrepancy.

¶13

Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass a fresh order but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and considering his reply.

¶14

With aforesaid directions, petition stands allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶15

Order Date :- 2.7.2024 Satish

¶16

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

Vinay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Basic Education Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Basic Education Deptt., Lucknow and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ankit Kumar Verma @ Shrawan Kumar Verma Vs Director Division U.P. Jal Nigam (Nagriya) Lko. and 2 Others

Ravi Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. through Secy. Higher Edu. Lko. and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Alpana Tewari and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 5 Others

Arpana Kumari (Arpana) Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 6 Others

Suresh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education Lko. and 4 Others