Sandeep Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko.
Case Details
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailendra Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for the Basic Education Officer-respondent no.6 and Mr. Rajiv Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.5.2025 passed by the Basic Education Officer on the premises that the same has been passed on the approval order dated 3.5.2025 passed by the District Magistrate for terminating the contractual services of the petitioner, The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, Central Government as well as State Government launched the mid-day meal scheme and, thereafter, a Government Order was issued on 24.2.2006 and, subsequently, on 8.12.2007, the applications were invited by respondent no.6 for appointment on the post of District Coordinator, under the scheme, for District Sultanpur and thereafter, on 28.3.2005, the petitioner was inducted on the post of District Coordinator after following due procedure for appointment which was for a period of one year and the same was extended uptil 2.4.2025. He further submitted that the petitioner rendered his services to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and his career throughout service period remained unblemished. 2 WRIA No. 6276 of 2025 He further argued that the State Government, issued the Government Order on 15.4.2015, wherein provision is made that renewal of the term of District Coordinator and Computer Operator can be done in terms of the report of their satisfactory services and on the basis of the same, the services of the petitioner have been renewed, time to time. He next added that on 14.3.2024, a report was sent by the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur, wherein the recommendation is done by the District Basic Education Officer looking into the satisfactory services of the petitioner on the post and the same is also approved by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur and the CDO, Sultanpur and subsequent thereof, the recommendation of the District Basic Education Officer dated 21.3.2025 was approved by the Chief Development Officer, District Sultanpur. He argued that on a frivolous complaint made by one Smt. Mamta Singh wife of Ashok Singh, an enquiry has been contemplated, vide order dated
3.5.2025 while constituting four members committee, wherein the Joint Magistrate was appointed as Chairman of the Enquiry Committee. He submitted that some civil dispute in between the petitioner and Smt. Mamta Singh is pending before the civil court and criminal cases are also pending in between them and complaint by the complainant, Mamta Singh is made, due to malice and there is no truthfulness in the same. He next submitted that one complaint is also made by Brijesh Singh and Abhishek Kumar Singh of Rajputana Shaurya Foundation and that too is frivolous. He further submitted that without waiting for result of the enquiry committee, on the very same day, the decision has been taken by the District Magistrate for termination of the services of the petitioner, that too without issuing show cause and termination of services itself goes against the first principle of law, i.e., principle of natural justice and, therefore, the order dated 3.5.2025 passed by the District Magistrate as well as the order impugned dated 8.5.2025 vitiates in the eyes of law and, therefore, those are liable to be quashed. Mr. Shailendra Singh Rajawat as well as Mr. Rajeev Singh Chauhan, learned counsel have opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that initially show cause notice was issued on 18.4.2025 which was replied on 1.5.2025 by the petitioner, and thereafter, the report was submitted on 3.5.2025 before 3 WRIA No. 6276 of 2025 the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Basic Shiksha Adhikari forwarded it to the District Magistrate concerned. He submitted that after the aforesaid report was submitted and enquiry has been contemplated by constituting four members committee, on the basis of approval of the District Magistrate, the services of the petitioner has been terminated and, therefore, there is no illegality or erroneousness in the order impugned. In rejoinder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though it has been stated in para 7 of the counter affidavit of the District Basic Education Officer that some report was submitted by Block Education Officer on 3.5.2025 but the copy of the said report has not been appended. Upon considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that some complaint was received against the petitioner and, thereafter an enquiry was contemplated and thereafter issuing show cause notice, the enquiry was concluded on 3.5.2025 and the report has been submitted whereafter decision has been taken by the District Magistrate while terminating the services of the petitioner and on the basis of the approval granted by the District Magistrate, the Basic Shiksha Adhiari has passed the order. When this Court examines the approval order of the District Magistrate dated 3.5.2025, it is apparent that on 3.5.2025 enquiry was constituted on complaint of Smt. Mamta Singh who evidently held same dispute with the present petitioner. The fact remains that the enquiry contemplated against the petitioner on the complaint of Smt. Mamta Singh has still not been concluded. This Court has also noticed from the order impugned that the services of the petitioner on contract basis has been terminated after the approval of the District Magistrate dated 3.5.2025 but the said approval is given without waiting for the report of the enquiry committee, which was constituted by the District Magistrate, vide order dated 3.5.2025 and that is still pending consideration. It has also been noticed by this Court that some enquiry was also contemplated earlier wherein report dated 3.5.2025 has been placed but a copy of the same has not been appended. This Court has also noticed that there is no impact of any kind of any report, which has been submitted, once the District Magistrate has constituted four member committee to enquire into the matter on complaint of Smt. Mamta Singh and 4 WRIA No. 6276 of 2025 without waiting for the report, the order of approval has been passed by the District Magistrate for terminating the services of the petitioner, therefore, both the impugned orders of approval and termination are against the principle of natural justice and thus the orders impugned vitiate in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the order dated 8.5.2025 passed by the Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur and the order dated 3.5.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur are hereby quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Consequences to follow. However, the District Magistrate, Sultanpur is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. December 3, 2025 Ram Murti (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shailendra Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for the Basic Education Officer-respondent no.6 and Mr. Rajiv Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.5.2025 passed by the Basic Education Officer on the premises that the same has been passed on the approval order dated 3.5.2025 passed by the District Magistrate for terminating the contractual services of the petitioner, The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, Central Government as well as State Government launched the mid-day meal scheme and, thereafter, a Government Order was issued on 24.2.2006 and, subsequently, on 8.12.2007, the applications were invited by respondent no.6 for appointment on the post of District Coordinator, under the scheme, for District Sultanpur and thereafter, on 28.3.2005, the petitioner was inducted on the post of District Coordinator after following due procedure for appointment which was for a period of one year and the same was extended uptil 2.4.2025. He further submitted that the petitioner rendered his services to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and his career throughout service period remained unblemished. 2 WRIA No. 6276 of 2025 He further argued that the State Government, issued the Government Order on 15.4.2015, wherein provision is made that renewal of the term of District Coordinator and Computer Operator can be done in terms of the report of their satisfactory services and on the basis of the same, the services of the petitioner have been renewed, time to time. He next added that on 14.3.2024, a report was sent by the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur, wherein the recommendation is done by the District Basic Education Officer looking into the satisfactory services of the petitioner on the post and the same is also approved by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur and the CDO, Sultanpur and subsequent thereof, the recommendation of the District Basic Education Officer dated 21.3.2025 was approved by the Chief Development Officer, District Sultanpur. He argued that on a frivolous complaint made by one Smt. Mamta Singh wife of Ashok Singh, an enquiry has been contemplated, vide order dated
3.5.2025 while constituting four members committee, wherein the Joint Magistrate was appointed as Chairman of the Enquiry Committee. He submitted that some civil dispute in between the petitioner and Smt. Mamta Singh is pending before the civil court and criminal cases are also pending in between them and complaint by the complainant, Mamta Singh is made, due to malice and there is no truthfulness in the same. He next submitted that one complaint is also made by Brijesh Singh and Abhishek Kumar Singh of Rajputana Shaurya Foundation and that too is frivolous. He further submitted that without waiting for result of the enquiry committee, on the very same day, the decision has been taken by the District Magistrate for termination of the services of the petitioner, that too without issuing show cause and termination of services itself goes against the first principle of law, i.e., principle of natural justice and, therefore, the order dated 3.5.2025 passed by the District Magistrate as well as the order impugned dated 8.5.2025 vitiates in the eyes of law and, therefore, those are liable to be quashed. Mr. Shailendra Singh Rajawat as well as Mr. Rajeev Singh Chauhan, learned counsel have opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that initially show cause notice was issued on 18.4.2025 which was replied on 1.5.2025 by the petitioner, and thereafter, the report was submitted on 3.5.2025 before 3 WRIA No. 6276 of 2025 the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Basic Shiksha Adhikari forwarded it to the District Magistrate concerned. He submitted that after the aforesaid report was submitted and enquiry has been contemplated by constituting four members committee, on the basis of approval of the District Magistrate, the services of the petitioner has been terminated and, therefore, there is no illegality or erroneousness in the order impugned. In rejoinder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though it has been stated in para 7 of the counter affidavit of the District Basic Education Officer that some report was submitted by Block Education Officer on 3.5.2025 but the copy of the said report has not been appended. Upon considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that some complaint was received against the petitioner and, thereafter an enquiry was contemplated and thereafter issuing show cause notice, the enquiry was concluded on 3.5.2025 and the report has been submitted whereafter decision has been taken by the District Magistrate while terminating the services of the petitioner and on the basis of the approval granted by the District Magistrate, the Basic Shiksha Adhiari has passed the order. When this Court examines the approval order of the District Magistrate dated 3.5.2025, it is apparent that on 3.5.2025 enquiry was constituted on complaint of Smt. Mamta Singh who evidently held same dispute with the present petitioner. The fact remains that the enquiry contemplated against the petitioner on the complaint of Smt. Mamta Singh has still not been concluded. This Court has also noticed from the order impugned that the services of the petitioner on contract basis has been terminated after the approval of the District Magistrate dated 3.5.2025 but the said approval is given without waiting for the report of the enquiry committee, which was constituted by the District Magistrate, vide order dated 3.5.2025 and that is still pending consideration. It has also been noticed by this Court that some enquiry was also contemplated earlier wherein report dated 3.5.2025 has been placed but a copy of the same has not been appended. This Court has also noticed that there is no impact of any kind of any report, which has been submitted, once the District Magistrate has constituted four member committee to enquire into the matter on complaint of Smt. Mamta Singh and 4 WRIA No. 6276 of 2025 without waiting for the report, the order of approval has been passed by the District Magistrate for terminating the services of the petitioner, therefore, both the impugned orders of approval and termination are against the principle of natural justice and thus the orders impugned vitiate in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the order dated 8.5.2025 passed by the Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur and the order dated 3.5.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur are hereby quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Consequences to follow. However, the District Magistrate, Sultanpur is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. December 3, 2025 Ram Murti (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench