Anoop Kumar Verma v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh and impugned notice dated 16.9.2021 issued by the Director of Education (Secondary Education), Prayagraj. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed by the Committee of Management headed by District Inspector of Schools on the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade on compassionate ground after the death of his father namely late Ramesh Chandra Verma who died during harness on 28.9.2000. In pursuance of the appointment letter, the petitioner joined the Institution on 2.12.2000 and continuously working in O.P. Mittal Inter College, Khair, Aligarh. Subsequently, on the basis of the some complaints lodged by respondent no.4, the proceedings for cancellation of his appointment was initiated on the ground that the said appointment was obtained by the petitioner under Dying- in- Harness Rules 1974 by concealing the fact to the effect that at the time of his appointment his mother was also holding the post of Assistant Teacher and as such, petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.
The District Inspector of Schools vide impugned order dated 28.5.2020 refer the matter before the Director of Eduction in view of Section 16-E (10) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 (hereinafter referred to the 'Act' and thereafter the Director of Education issued the notice to the petitioner to remain present on 16.9.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was appeared before the Director of Education (Secondary Education), Prayagraj on 6.9.2021 but the matter could not be heard and was adjourned and till date no specific date has been fixed by the Director of Education (Secondary Education), Prayagraj and the matter pertains cancellation of appointment of the petitioner is under consideration. Learned counsel for the further next submitted that in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Dr. Asha Saxena Vs. Smt. S.K. Chaudhar & Ors reported in [(1991)2 UPLBEC 1202] in which, it is held that the power under Section 16- E (10) of the Act, to cancel the appointment of the petitioner after a period of 21 years cannot be exercised and the same shall be exercised within reasonable time.
Operative part
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed another Division Bench of this Court in Vimal Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors reported in 2015 3 ADJ 348. Since the appointment of the petitioner has not been cancelled till date and as such the proper remedy available to the petitioner to approached before the Director of Education (Secondary Education), Prayagraj. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 4.5.2022 Akbar AKBAR Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 04 May 2022. The bench was RAJIV JOSHI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.