C/M Shri Hargauri Sanskrit Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Thru. Manager Sri Bhoopal Krishna Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 461 of 2026

¶3

C/M Shri Hargauri Sanskrit Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Thru. Manager Sri Bhoopal Krishna Dwivedi

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. Deptt. Lko And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anshuman Singh Rathore, Pramod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pawan Kumar Pandey

¶7

Court No. - 17

¶8

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶9

( Order on I.A. No. Nil of 2026- impleadment application)

¶10

Heard Shri Anshuman Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vishal Tehlani, the learned Standing Counsel and Shri Sharad Pathak, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pawan Kumar Pandey, Advocate, who has filed an application for impleadment on behalf of one Satya Dev Tiwari.

¶11

It has been stated in the impleadment application that Satya Dev Tiwari had filed complaints dated 06.03.2019 and 24.07.2023 and this complaint find reference in the impugned office order dated 24.12.2025. However, a perusal of the order dated 24.12.2025 shows that it does not make any mention of the complaint filed by Shri Satya Dev Tiwari against the present Manager of the petitioner-institution, Shri Bhoopal Krishna Diwivedi.

¶12

However, from the letter dated 14.07.2025 sent by the Joint Director Education, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya to the petitioner and Shri Satya Dev Tiwari, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to the impleadment application, it appears that Shri Satya Dev Tiwari was also given opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order.

¶13

In these circumstances, this Court finds that Shri Satya Dev Tiwari is a proper party to the petition.

¶14

Therefore, the impleadment application is allowed .

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to incorporate the

¶16

WRIC No. 461 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

necessary impleadment in the memo of petition by impleading Shri Satya Dev Tiwari forthwith.

¶19

(Order on petition)

¶20

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned Office Order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the opposite party No.1-State Government appointing an authorized controller for managing the affairs of the petitioner-institution. The office order makes a mention of 25 points complaints against the petitioner institution.

¶21

Assailing validity of the impugned office order dated 24.12.2025, submission of Sri Anshuman Singh Rathore, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that out of those 25 points, point Nos.1 to 11, 13 to 15, 17, 20, 21 and 25 are not related to any action taken by the Committee of the institution after the petitioner got elected as its Manager on 07.09.2018 and all these allegations relate to actions taken prior to the aforesaid date. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalized for any action taken by the Committee when he was not managing the affairs of the institution. Point No.12 of the complaint states that the Chair person/manager of the institution had sent incorrect instructions for constitution of Committee on 07.09.2018 which was rejected by means of a letter dated 11.09.2018 and the institution was directed to provide evidence on eight points mentioned in the letter. The aforesaid information/evidence was not provided and a list of members was submitted on 04.10.2018 on the basis of an election conducted in an illegal manner in which it was claimed that the petitioner, who is son of Shri Vageesh Dutt Dwivedi, the former Manager, is said to have been elected. This election was rejected by means of an order dated 08.10.2018.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this appointment of authorized controller is unsustainable as validity of the order dated 08.10.2018 was challenged by filing the writ petition no.32187 of 2018 before this Court which was disposed off by means of an order dated 01.11.2018. In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, a representation of the petitioner was disposed off by means of an order dated 22.01.2019 passed by a three member committee consisting of Joint Director Education, Deputy Director Education (Secondary) and District Inspector of Schools wherein, holding that the elections were held on the basis of valid list of members of general body and recognition was granted to the committee elected in the election held on 21.09.2018. As the three member committee headed by the Joint Director Education has upheld the elections that were held on 21.09.2018, authorized controller could not have been appointed due to the aforesaid election.

¶23

WRIC No. 461 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

The complaint No.16 against the petitioner is that the present manager had appointed four teachers in the institution and the earlier manager had also appointed one person as teacher in an illegal manner.

¶26

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointments of teachers were made keeping in view the exigency of work and there is no stipulation that the appointees will be appointed on regular basis and will receive their salary from the State Exchequer.

¶27

Sri Sharad Pathak, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the newly impleaded opposite party has vehemently opposed this submission and he has submitted that the petitioner had not come before this Court with clean hands and he has concealed some material facts.

¶28

In paragraph 14 of the writ petition, it has specifically been pleaded that the impugned order dated 24.12.2025 has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Although extensive submissions were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned counsel for the newly impleaded opposite party no.7 stated that he does not dispute the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He has submitted that in view of this fact, situation, the matter should be remanded for being decided afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and this Court should not go into the submissions made touching the merits of the rival contentions of the parties.

¶29

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶30

The impugned Office Order dated 24.12.2025 as amended by a Corrigendum dated 24.01.2026, passed by opposite party no.1 appointing opposite party no.6- Principal, Government Inter College, Akbarpur, Ambedkar Nagar as the Authorized Controller of Shri Hargauri Shanskrit Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Adampur Tindauli, Ambedkar Nagar, is quashed. The matter is remanded to the opposite party no.1 for being decided afresh after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶31

February 17, 2026 Muk

¶32

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

C/M Shri Hargauri Sanskrit Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Thru. Manager Sri Bhoopal Krishna Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Shri Hargauri Sanskrit Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Thru. Manager Sri Bhoopal Krishna Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brham Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sant Bux Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

U. P. Bijli Karmchari Sangh Regional Committee Thru. Auth. Sign. Hemant Nandan Ojha and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Labour Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Dev Bakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Ayodhya and 3 Others

Raghvendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ayush Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue and 5 Others