IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. P. Srivastava and D. R. Choudhary, JJ.
DR. SATYENDRA SINGH - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (HIGHER EDUCATION) - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 32830 Of 1993
Decided On : 04/24/2002
Opportunity of Hearing - Appointment Dispute - Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, Section 12, Section 13(4)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a change in his appointment from one college to another, citing personal reasons. The Director of Education rejected the request, leading the petitioner to approach the court seeking redress.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to present his case in writing, which was considered by the Director of Education. The court held that an opportunity to show cause by representation amounts to an effective opportunity of hearing, and the petitioner was not prejudiced.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing as required by the court's previous order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an opportunity to show cause by representation amounts to an effective opportunity of hearing, and the duty to hear does not necessarily mean affording of personal hearing or audience.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding it devoid of merit.
S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.
( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel representing the respondents.
( 2 ) PERUSED the record. The facts, in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this writ petition, lie in a narrow compass. In the proceedings for the selection and appointment of Principal in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services commission Act, 1980, the petitioner had given his preference for various colleges. During the period of the validity of the list referred to in sub-clause (2) of Section 13 of the said Act, a vacancy in the post of Principal of Durga Dutt Chunnilal Khakdelwal Postgraduate College, maunath Bhanjan had come into existence. The petitioner submitted an application to the director for changing the preference given by him and requesting that he may be granted appointment on the post of Principal of the aforesaid College Instead of Ram Swarup Gram udyog Postgraduate College, Pukhrayan, Kanpur Dehat. It appears that the representation of the petitioner was kept pending for a long time without any orders with the result that the petitioner had to approach this Court by means of Misc. Writ Petition No, 30080 of 1993, which was heard and disposed of vide the judgment and order dated 29,6. 1993, whereunder this Court observing that the question whether the petitioner could be posted and appointed to the said college may be taken into consideration by the Director of Education, issued a direction requiring the Director of education (Higher Education), U. P. , Allahabad, to decide the representation of the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to him and the Committee of Management of Ram Swarup gram Udyog Post Graduate College, Pukhrayan, Kanpur Dehat and also the Committee of management of college at Maunath Bharijan, Mau. By the aforesaid order, this Court required the Director to pass a reasoned order after disposing of the representation within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of a certified copy of the said order along with copy of the writ petition and that too after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
( 3 ) THE Director of Education (Higher Education) vide the impugned order had rejected the representation of the petitioner.
( 4 ) FEELING, aggrieved, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the aforesaid order and for the issuance of a direction requiring the respondent authority to appoint him on the post of Principal Durga Dutt Chunnilal Khandelwal Post graduate College, Maunath Bhanjan, Mau.
( 5 ) FROM the record, it appears that from the office of the Director (Higher Education), a letter was issued on 21. 7. 1983. pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued vide the order passed by this court. This letter was issued under the signature of the Assistant Director of Education requiring the petitioner to appear in his chamber and present his case along with copy of his representations dated 15. 6. 1993 as well as 21. 6. 1993. It may be noticed that in the aforesaid letter dated 21. 7. 1993, the date, which had been fixed, for the appearance of the petitioner was 5th August, 1993. The petitioner submitted his submissions in writing in support of his case vide his memo dated 5. 8. 1993. A copy of this memo has been filed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. These written submissions are addressed not only to the Director of Higher Education but also to the Deputy Director of Education. In the aforesaid written submissions, the petitioner had asserted that he was the original resident of Lalganj, district Azamgarh, which was a district situated nearby the district of Maunath Bhanjan, Mau and from that place he could successfully discharge his family responsibilities and also look after his dependents, who were studying In the degree College of Purvanchal Viswavidyalaya, Jaunpur. It was further asserted that
Referred to : Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.