Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42878 of 2018 Petitioner :- Priyanka Singh Patel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kushmondeya Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jay Ram Pandey
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead The Controller of Examination, Shobhit University, Meerut as party respondent no. 5.
By the impugned order dated 23.08.2018 passed by Principal, District Institute of Educational Training, Patehra Kala, Mirzapur has rejected the admission of the petitioner for the D.EI.Ed. (B.T.C. course) Batch-2018.
The only submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed.
The order impugned dated 23.08.2018 records discrepancy in the graduation marksheet submitted by the petitioner. The order further records that the institution where the petitioner was enrolled, was not recognized.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that this is a matter which requires verification and investigation by the competent authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a post decisional hearing would enable the petitioner to tender her defence before the competent authority.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 Sri Jay Ram Pandey does not have serious objection to the aforesaid submission.
No useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending. With the consent of the parties, the following order is being passed.
It is well settled that the principles of natural justice are not cast in any straitjacket formula. The requirements of natural justice are adapted to the facts of the case to subserve the ends of justice. In the evolution of the law of natural justice, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has applied the concept of post decisional hearing in appropriate cases. In the case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, reported at (2015) 8 SCC 519, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
"38. But that is not the end of the matter. While the law on the principle of audi alteram partem has progressed in the manner mentioned above, at the same time, the Courts have also repeatedly remarked that the principles of natural justice are very flexible principles. They cannot be applied in any straight-jacket formula. It all depends upon the kind of functions performed and to the extent to which a person is likely to be affected. For this reason, certain exceptions to the aforesaid principles have been invoked under certain circumstances. For example, the Courts have held that it would be sufficient to allow a person to make a representation and oral hearing may not be necessary in all cases, though in some matters, depending upon the nature of the case, not only full- fledged oral hearing but even cross-examination of witnesses is treated as necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice. Likewise, in service matters relating to major punishment by way of disciplinary action, the requirement is very strict and full-fledged opportunity is envisaged under the statutory rules as well. On the other hand, in those cases where there is an admission of charge, even when no such formal inquiry is held, the punishment based on such admission is upheld. It is for this reason, in certain circumstances, even post-decisional hearing is held to be permissible. Further, the Courts have held that under certain circumstances principles of natural justice may even be excluded by reason of diverse factors like time, place, the apprehended danger and so on."
In view of the facts of the case and position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a post decisional hearing would subserve the interest of justice. The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2, Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Allahabad for fresh consideration.
The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2,rincipal, District Institute of Educational Training, Patehra Kala, District Mirzapur. A mandamus is issued to the respondent no. 2, Principal, District Institute of Educational Training, Patehra Kala, District Mirzapur commanding him to execute the following directions:
I. The respondent no. 2 shall permit the petitioner to submit a representation in support of her case and to clear the discrepancy in the marksheets.
II. The respondent no. 2 shall seek verification of the documents of the petitioner from the concerned University.
III. The Principal, D.I.E.T., Mirzapur shall also ascertain in the course of investigation whether the institution in which the petitioner was enrolled was a duly recognized institution.
IV. The newly impleaded respondent no. 5 shall cooperate with the Principal, D.I.E.T., Mirzapur in the aforesaid investigation.
V. The material adverse to the petitioner, if any, and proposed to be relied against her shall be provided to the petitioner.
VI. The respondent no. 2 shall after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner decide her representation and the validity of her candidature by a reasoned and speaking order.
VII. The exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
VIII. The petitioner shall serve a copy of this order to the newly impleaded respondent no. 5 for necessary compliance.
It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the veracity of the assertions of the writ petition nor has judged the claim of the petitioner on merits. It is for the competent authority to do so in accordance with law after independent application of mind.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 Dhananjai