Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17083 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hammir Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 and Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4.
The petitioner has applied for selection pursuant to an advertisement issued by State for selection and appointment of 16448 Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad. The petitioner was selected, and thereafter, by order/letter dated 21.09.2015 issued by respondent no.3 District Basic Education Officer, Mathura, petitioner was posted at Purva Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Bhagwangadi, District Mathura.
Pursuant to the aforesaid letter dated 21.09.2015, petitioner joined the said school on 23.09.2015 and since then he is working in the said school. The respondent no.3 passed an order on 22.08.2019 terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has obtained appointment in backward class quota by fraud by producing marks-sheet bearing Roll No.03077548 showing that he has secured 97 marks in U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test whereas the said Roll no.03077548 relates to one Sunita Yadav D/o Jauki Ram Yadav, who has obtained 58 marks in the category of backward class. The said order is impugned in the writ petition.
Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is a permanent employee and procedure for taking any disciplinary action is contemplated under the U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 read with U.P. Government Servant (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1999, and without following the due procedure contemplated under the aforesaid rules, services of the petitioner has been terminated. The further submission is that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and no notice and opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the respondent no.3 before passing the said order.
Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and 4, though, could not point out from the order impugned or from the record that procedure provided in the Rules, 1999 for taking disciplinary action has been followed or any notice and opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the order of termination. However, he submits that in the facts of the present case, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and matter may be remanded back to respondent no.3 to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Be that as it may, perusal of order impugned clearly reveals that no notice or opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner by respondent no.3 before passing the impugned order. Further, the procedure provided for taking disciplinary action against teachers in U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973 read with U.P. Government Servant (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1999 has not been followed by respondent no.3 before terminating the services of the petitioner. Thus, the order impugned in the writ petition cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly, set aside.
For the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed with liberty to respondent no.3 to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law after following due procedure contemplated in rules applicable to the petitioner.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Sattyarth