Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2733 of 2019 Petitioner :- Kumari Rumee Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devottam Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard Mr. Devottam Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 29.11.2018 passed by the third respondent, District Basic Education Officer, Siddharth Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgement delivered by this Court in Writ A No.1066 of 2019 (Kumari Pinki Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) decided on 22.1.2019, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order of termination dated 29.11.2018 passed by the respondent No.3 namely District Basic Education Officer District Siddharth Nagar. In the order impugned, it is mentioned by the respondent No.3 that in spite of the opportunities being given to the petitioner vide letters dated 25.10.2018 and 13.11.2018 and thereafter vide news paper publication dated 22.11.2018, no response whatsoever has been submitted by the petitioner. The allegation made against the petitioner is that he has produced forged certificate of U.P. T.E.T 2013 examination issued by Examination Regulatory Authority Allenganj Allahabad. It is contended by the petitioner in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that before passing the order she had not received any show cause notice.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 and A.K. Singh, Advocate accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.3.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties as well as in the interest of justice, this petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit her detailed reply before the respondent No.3/District Basic Education Officer, Siddharth Nagar within three weeks' from today along with a certified copy of this order. If such a reply is submitted, respondent No.3 will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within two months thereafter.
By passing this order, the court is neither permitting the petitioner to work in the Institution nor shall become entitle for the payment of her salary from the State Exchequer till the final decision is taken by the respondent No.3. The order dated 29.11.2018 is abide by the order passed by the respondent No.3.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of."
It is admitted between the parties that the controversy involved in the aforesaid judgement is absolutely identical as in the present case.
In the circumstances, the present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the judgement rendered in the case of Kumari Pinki Singh (supra) directing the petitioner to submit her detailed reply before the respondent No.3/District Basic Education Officer, Siddharth Nagar within three weeks' from today along with a certified copy of this order. If such a reply is submitted, respondent No.3 will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within two months thereafter.
By passing this order, the court is neither permitting the petitioner to work in the Institution nor shall become entitle for the payment of her salary from the State Exchequer till the final decision is taken by the respondent No.3. The order dated 29.11.2018 is abide by the order passed by the respondent No.3.
Order Date :- 21.2.2019 Pramod Tripathi