Back
2003 Supreme(All) 1186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. P. SRIVASTAVA, K. N. OJHA, J.
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT - Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (BASIC) MEERUT - Respondents
Special Appeal 363 Of 2003
Decided On : 05/22/2003
H.R.MISRA, P.Padia, S.K.MISHRA
The court emphasized the importance of affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing orders affecting the rights and liabilities of the parties.
Headnote:
Fraud and Misrepresentation - Appointment Dispute - [Education, Appointment, Inquiry] - [Chapter-VIII Rule 5 of the Court, AIR 1974 SC 1719] - The court discussed the appointment dispute and entitlement of the respondent to hold the post of an assistant Teacher in an educational institution. The court found that the impugned orders were passed without affording any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and deserved to be quashed, with the liberty to hold an inquiry into the matter of fraud and misrepresentation of facts within three months. The petitioner was entitled to receive salary and other allowances based on earlier approval of her appointment, subject to furnishing adequate security.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute relates to the appointment and entitlement of respondent no. 3 to hold the post of an assistant Teacher in an educational institution. The appellant raised concerns about the pending writ petition and the insistence to comply with the interim order granted in favor of the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned orders were passed without affording any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and deserved to be quashed, with the liberty to hold an inquiry into the matter of fraud and misrepresentation of facts within three months. The petitioner was entitled to receive salary and other allowances based on earlier approval of her appointment, subject to furnishing adequate security.
Issues: The main grievance of the petitioner was the lack of inquiry before passing the impugned order, termination of services without a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and jurisdiction of the authority to pass the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned orders were found to be passed without affording any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and the court directed an inquiry into the matter of fraud and misrepresentation of facts within three months.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed, with the liberty to hold an inquiry into the matter of fraud and misrepresentation of facts within three months. The petitioner was entitled to receive salary and other allowances based on earlier approval of her appointment, subject to furnishing adequate security.
( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant.
( 2 ) SHRI H. R. Misra, the learned standing Counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 as well as Dr. Padia, learned Senior Advocate, representing the petitioner-respondent no. 3 have also been heard.
( 3 ) PERUSED the record.
( 4 ) THE dispute in this case relates to the appointment and the entitlement of respondent no. 3 to hold the post of an assistant Teacher in an educational institution known as Nehru Jai Jawan Jai kisan Junior High School, Galand, ghaziabad, which institution imparts education up to the standard of class-VIII and receives the grant-in-aid from the state. At present an Authorised Controller has been appointed for that institution vesting him with the jurisdiction exercisable by the Committee of management.
( 5 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the committee of Management through the learned single judge holding that the respondents which included the Regional deputy Director of Education and Basis shiksha Adhikari, Ghaziabad were not entitled to be heard in opposition to the writ petition as they had in utter disregard of the impugned order dated 22. 02. 2002 passed by this court had not carried into effect the said order.
( 6 ) IT may be noticed that feeling aggrieved by the interim order dated 22. 02. 2002, a Special Appeal had been filed, which was registered as Special appeal No. 343 of 2002 and was finally disposed of vide the order dated 21. 03. 2002, directing that the writ petition be listed on 16. 04. 2002, indicating the expectation that the writ petition shall be disposed of as early as possible. The appellant was given a liberty to move an application for vacating the interim order. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench disposing of the special appeal, an application seeking vacation of the interim order was filed on 16. 04. 2002. The learned Single Judge vide the order dated 25. 03. 2003 had directed the respondents to inform the court by the next date fixed as to whether the interim order dated 22. 02. 2002 with regard to the payment of current salary of the petitioner had been complied with or not, providing further that the interim order dated 22. 02. 2002 shall continue to remain operative until further orders of this court. The learned counsel for appellant has urged that in spite of the order passed by the Division Bench for the expeditious hearing of the writ petition and even fixing a date for its disposal, nothing was done and the writ petition continues to remain pending undecided.
( 7 ) THE grievance raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that on the one hand the writ petition is kept pending and on the other hand the appellant is being insisted to comply with the interim order granted in favour of the petitioner ignoring altogether the fact that the petitioner had obtained the interim order by practicing fraud and on the basis of misrepresentation of facts. It is urged that in the present case the fraud and misrepresentation is writ large yet the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order without disposing of the application seeking vacation of the interim order.
( 8 ) A perusal of the writ petition giving rise to the Special Appeal indicates that the main grievance of the petitioner is that absolutely no inquiry, whatsoever, was held, by the College Management/ authorised Controller, which was the competent authority under the relevant rules and even the Basis Shiksha Adhikari concerned, before passing the impugned order which visited the petitioner with evil consequences. It is further urged that the services of the petitioner could not be terminated after a long period of 22 years and payment of her salary could not be denied after such a long period of regular working without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to her.
( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner-respondent has further urged that the District Basis Shiksha Adhikari had no jurisdict
