Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17822 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Shilta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Divakar Rai Sharma,Sr. Advocate, Shri Ashok Khare,Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav,Prabhakar Awasthi
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 06.08.2018 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi on an enquiry report conducted by the competent authority whereby sanction for appointment of the petitioner on post of Head Mistress has been withdrawn.
2. District Basic Education Officer in the impugned order has observed that serious irregularities were committed and the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules.
3. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the District Basic Education Officer has verbatim quoted the entire report in the impugned order. However, he has not applied his independent mind inasmuch as there is no finding in the impugned order that in what manner the appointment of the petitioner was against the Rules. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is without application of mind and, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.
4. Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the complainant who is a Member of the Committee of Management submits that the appointment was procured by the petitioner and three others by submitting forged certificates and they were not qualified as per Rules and the manner in which the appointments were made speaks volumes about the illegality and irregularities committed in their appointment. He said that at this stage when final order has been passed for removal of the petitioner, it would not be appropriate to allow the petitioner to continue on the post.
5. The petitioner had completed the probation period and was confirmed. She has been working in the Institution since 03.08.2016.
6. From the tenor of the impugned order, it is clear that the District Basic Education Officer has not applied his independent mind to the enquiry report and passed the impugned order.
6. Shri Awasthi representing the complainant says that he has no objection if the impugned order is quashed including the order dated 01.06.2018 whereby the salary of the petitioner was stopped and the matter is remanded back to the District Basic Education Officer to pass a fresh order within a time bound manner.
7. Shri Nitish Yadav representing respondent No.4 says that the final order is to be passed by the Committee of Management and not by the District Basic Education Officer. I do not agree with the aforesaid contention of Shri Nitish Yadav inasmuch as the competent authority to take final decision with respect to the appointment of petitioner is the District Basic Education Officer and not by Committee of Management. The Committee of Management has to implement the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer.
8. Considering the entirety of the matter, it would be appropriate to quash the impugned order as well as order dated 01.06.2018 and remand the matter back to District Basic Education Officer who after affording an opportunity to the petitioner as well as complainant and Committee of Management to pass the final order afresh within a period of one month.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 prateek