Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 928 of 2019 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kushmondeya Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Himanshu Pandey,Ruchi Pandey
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 had both staked claim for grant of compassionate appointment consequent upon death of their mother Smt. Santosh. Directions were issued by this Court to examine claim of respondent no. 4. It is alleged that notices were issued to both, petitioner as well as respondent no. 4, and the District Inspector of Schools conducted hearing on 26th September, 2018. Consequent upon such hearing, an order has been passed on 11.12.2018 by the District Inspector of Schools, accepting claim of respondent no. 4. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner is before this Court.
The order is essentially assailed on the ground that after the hearing was concluded, an ex-parte report appears to have been submitted by one Dr. Subhash Chandra Maurya on 27.11.2018 and relying thereupon the order impugned has been passed. Submission is that this course is clearly impermissible, inasmuch as, the material which has been relied upon to discard petitioner's claim was brought into effect after hearing was concluded and the petitioner had no opportunity to confront it. It is also stated that the procedure contemplated in Regulation 105 framed pursuant to Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, has otherwise not been followed, inasmuch as, a three member committee was required to have been constituted to examine such issues, which has not been done.
Learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Himanshu Pandey appearing for respondent no. 4 submits that adequate opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner.
From the materials brought before the Court, it is apparent that the exparte report of Dr. Subhash Chandra Maurya dated 27.11.2018 was not even in existence on the date when hearing was concluded in the matter. Placing reliance upon such report for the purposes of passing the order impugned cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, petitioner had not been given opportunity to confront it. Even otherwise the procedure contemplated in Regulation 105 has not been followed. For all such reasons, the impugned order dated 11.12.2018 stands quashed. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to reconsider the claim of parties after complying with Regulation 105 and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The required consideration would be made within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
Subject to the observations aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.1.2019 Ranjeet Sahu