Allowed

Anil Bajpai @ Anil Kumar Bajpai and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2024WRIA/5943/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Honbland Manish Mathur J., ruled that a Government Order cannot override statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the petitioner appointment based on a rejected rule was quashed, and the Government Order itself was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the appointment claim and the Government Order dated 10.04.2003 are quashed. The Director Basic Education U.P. is directed to reconsider the case for appointment within ei

Anil Bajpai @ Anil Kumar Bajpai and Another vs… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66691

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5943 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Anil Bajpai @ Anil Kumar Bajpai And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avinash Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 16.05.2024 whereby petitioners' claim for being appointed on the post of Block Education Officer with effect from the date of entitlement as per provisions of U.P. Adhinasth Shiksha (Pranti Upvidyalaya Nirikshak) Seva Niyamavali, 1992 has been rejected.

¶8

It has been submitted that the aforesaid claim of petitioners has been rejected by means of impugned order solely on the ground that the aforesaid provisions of the Regulations of 1992, particularly Rules 5 (1) has been rescinded by means of Government Order dated 10.04.2003.

¶9

In pursuance of directions issued earlier, learned State Counsel has produced the Government Order dated 10.04.2003, a copy of which is taken on record.

¶10

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the impugned order dated 16.05.2024 and the Government Order dated 10.04.2003, it is evident that the provisions of Rule 5 (1) (Rule 50 as indicated in the Government Order dated 10.04.2003) has been rescinded by means of the aforesaid Government Order dated 10.04.2003.

¶11

It is evident that the aforesaid Rules of 1992 have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and are dated 18.07.1992. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Raj Kumar versus Union of India , 1975 (14) SCC 13 and MD/Chairman, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. versus Mishri Lal and others , 2011 (14) SCC 739 has clearly enunciated that Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India

¶12

would have statutory force. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, any changes or recession of statutory provisions can take place only by means of amendment in the aforesaid rules in accordance with provisions of the Constitution of India.

¶13

Government Orders being merely executive instructions issued under Article 166 of the Constitution of India cannot have any primacy over statutory provisions even if framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

¶14

In view of aforesaid, the reasoning indicated in the impugned order dated 16.05.2024 being patently illegal and against dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court, is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari.

¶15

Although the Government Order dated 10.04.2003 is not under challenge but exercising extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Government Order dated 10.04.2003 is also hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari.

¶16

Accordingly, the opposite party no. 3 i.e. Director, Basic Education, U.P. Lucknow is directed to take to reconsider petitioners' case for appointment/promotion on the post of Block Education Officer in terms of Rule 5 (1) of the Rules of 1992. Such a decision shall be taken by the authorities within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this is served upon the concerned authority.

¶17

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed . Parties to bear their own cost.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.9.2024 Satish

¶19

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

Anil Bajpai @ Anil Kumar Bajpai and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Bajpai @ Anil Kumar Bajpai and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 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

Lalta Prasad Shukl Vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural) Thru. Managing Director Lko. and 3 Others

Ajeet Singh Chauhan and 5 Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Coorerative Lko and 2 Others

Raj Kishore Thakur Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Mini. of Communication and 2 Others

Parshuram and 7 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Sharan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. P.W.D. Lko. and 3 Others

Kanhaiya Prasad vs Mr. Deepak Kumar, IAS Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another