# Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 569
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-25
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 11855 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arvind-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50953
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C., Ms. Manisha Chaturvedi, Smt.
Chandra Kala Chaturvedi
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Services
Selection Board Act, 1982 - Section 33G(1) & (8) - Regularisation - Appointment
against short-term vacancy - Payment of salary
under Court's interim order - Effect.
Regional Selection Committee rejected claim for
regularisation holding petitioner ineligible as he
was drawing salary only under Court's order -
Held, misconceived - Section 33-G(8) to be read
conjunctively:
both
conditions
i.e.
invalid
appointment and salary only under Court's order
must exist - If appointment otherwise validly
made
under
Removal
of
Difficulties
Order/Section
18,
claim
for
regularisation
cannot be denied merely because salary was
released pursuant to Court's interim order.
(Paras 8, 16, 19)
Appointment - Validity - Evidence of short-term
vacancy.

Promotion of incumbent (Saryu Yadav) as Head
Master in 1996 created short-term vacancy -
Petitioner appointed in 1997 with due procedure
- District Inspector of Schools later confirmed
his working and ordered salary - Continuous
discharge
of
duties
and
assignment
of
examination duties from 1999 onwards establish
valid appointment - Plea of management
denying vacancy unsustainable. (Paras 2-4, 9,
14-15)
Regularisation - Equitable considerations.

Service of more than two decades cannot be
nullified only on ground of technicalities -
Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs St.
of U.P., AIR 2024 SC 260 held beneficiaries of
management's irregularities cannot be penalised
absent their complicity - Same principle applied.
(Paras 20-21)

Held : Orders dated 25.04.2023 (Joint Director
of
Education)
and
14.07.2023
(DIOS,
Azamgarh) quashed - Matter remitted for fresh
decision in light of Court's observations - To be
completed within 30 days. (Paras 22-23)

Writ Petition Allowed.

CASE LAW DISCUSSED-

## Text

3 All. Arvind Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
569
circumstances. It cannot be for all time to
come when recruitment process is governed
by statutory rules. An executive order to
impose ban is also to be subject to certain
conditions and for a certain period
otherwise, the Act and statutory rules
would get superseded by executive acts/
fiats at its whims. Once such a ban is lifted,
it should, therefore, be taken to have been
lifted absolutely.

15. The order dated 5th November,
2018, accordingly, to that extent is hereby
quashed.

16. The writ petition is allowed.

17. The Director of Higher Education,
U.P., Prayagraj is directed to accord
necessary approval after verification of the
records in the selection procedure place
before him and if otherwise there is no
legal impediment, within a period of two
weeks from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 569
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.01.2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 11855 of 2023

Arvind Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Hridaya Narain Singh, Sri Ashok Khare
(Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ms. Manisha Chaturvedi, Smt.
Chandra Kala Chaturvedi
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Services
Selection Board Act, 1982 - Section 33G(1) & (8) - Regularisation - Appointment
against short-term vacancy - Payment of salary
under Court's interim order - Effect.
Regional Selection Committee rejected claim for
regularisation holding petitioner ineligible as he
was drawing salary only under Court's order -
Held, misconceived - Section 33-G(8) to be read
conjunctively:
both
conditions
i.e.
invalid
appointment and salary only under Court's order
must exist - If appointment otherwise validly
made
under
Removal
of
Difficulties
Order/Section
18,
claim
for
regularisation
cannot be denied merely because salary was
released pursuant to Court's interim order.
(Paras 8, 16, 19)
Appointment - Validity - Evidence of short-term
vacancy.

Promotion of incumbent (Saryu Yadav) as Head
Master in 1996 created short-term vacancy -
Petitioner appointed in 1997 with due procedure
- District Inspector of Schools later confirmed
his working and ordered salary - Continuous
discharge
of
duties
and
assignment
of
examination duties from 1999 onwards establish
valid appointment - Plea of management
denying vacancy unsustainable. (Paras 2-4, 9,
14-15)
Regularisation - Equitable considerations.

Service of more than two decades cannot be
nullified only on ground of technicalities -
Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs St.
of U.P., AIR 2024 SC 260 held beneficiaries of
management's irregularities cannot be penalised
absent their complicity - Same principle applied.
(Paras 20-21)

Held : Orders dated 25.04.2023 (Joint Director
of
Education)
and
14.07.2023
(DIOS,
Azamgarh) quashed - Matter remitted for fresh
decision in light of Court's observations - To be
completed within 30 days. (Paras 22-23)

Writ Petition Allowed.

CASE LAW DISCUSSED-

1. Pramod Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (Writ - A
No. 1981 of 2021)
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. Mohinder Singh Gill Vs Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi, (1978) 1 SCC 405

3. Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs St. of U.P., AIR
2024 SC 260 (SLP (C) Nos. 3877-3878, decided
on 03.01.2024)

4.
Chief
Engineer,
M.S.E.B.
Vs
Suresh
Raghunath Bhokare, (2005) 10 SCC 465

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri H.N.Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.
Manisha Chaturvedi, learned counsel for
the Committee of Management and learned
Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The petitioner before this Court is
working as Assistant Teacher in LT Grade
in a recognized and aided institution being
run and managed by 6th respondent and
claims that he has been working ever since
he submitted his joining in the institution
on 5.12.1997 pursuant to his initial
appointment on 3.12.1997 taking recourse
to provisions as contained under Second
Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 and
read with Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary
Education Service Commission Act, 1982.
He claims to have been appointed against
short term vacancy on account of one Saryu
Yadav, the then Assistant Teacher in LT
Grade upon getting promoted as head
master in the institution in October, 1996.

3. He also claims to have possessed
requisite qualification to be appointed as
Assistant Teacher in LT Grade as per
provision Appendix-A of the Intermediate
Education Act,
1921,
and
therefore,
Committee
of
Management
rightly
proceeded to adopt resolution accepting
recommendation of the selection committee
offering him appointment. The papers,
according to the petitioner were forwarded
by the Committee of Management on
8.12.1997 to the District Inspector of
schools but the District Inspector of
Schools refused to accord approval to the
appointment of the petitioner and so also
consequently he was not paid salary. It was
when despite several representations made
by him, no heed was paid by the District
Inspector of Schools, petitioner approached
the Lucknow bench of this Court by filing
writ petition (SS) No. 4740 of 2009, in
which a detail interim order was passed on
30th October, 2010 with the rider that in the
event petitioner has been working upon
being appointed against short-term vacancy
and discharging duties as such then it will
be equitable to pay him salary, accordingly
he is entitled to salary.

4. The order dated 10th May, 2002
negating the claim of the salary of the
petitioner was stayed, of-course the Court
also ordered that in the event selected
candidate
joined
the
institution,
automatically
petitioner's
appointment
against post in question would come to end.
After the interim order was passed as above
by this Court on 30th August, 2010, the
District Inspector of Schools, it appears
enquired
from
the
Principal of the
institution
regarding
appointment
and
working of the petitioner as Assistant
Teacher in LT Grade on ad hoc basis and
upon furnishing of requisite information
and documents by the then Principal of the
institution that District Inspector of Schools
proceeded to pass order for payment of
salary. Thus petitioner has been drawing
salary.

5. In the meanwhile, petitioner also
filed writ petition being Service Single No.
13361 of 2001 seeking consideration of his
claim for regularization in view of Section
3 All. Arvind Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
571
33-G of the Act No. 5 of 1982 while
disposing of the said petition under the
order dated 27.7.2021, the Court also
disposed of earlier petition of the petitioner
being no. 47040 of 2009 on 27.7.2021 with
a direction that petitioner would be
continued in employment and shall be paid
salary in terms of an interim order passed
earlier by this Court on 30th August, 2010
till such time a final decision is taken by
respondents in the matter of regularization
as directed by this Court in the other writ
petition no. 13361 of 2001.

6. It is in this above view of the
matter that claim for regularization come to
be decided by the Regional Selection
Committee under the order impugned after
hearing all the respective parties including
Committee of Management and in its final
resolution adopted by the Committee it
negated the claim of the petitioner for
regularization holding him not eligible as
such for regularization not falling within
the criterion laid down under Section 33G(8) of Act No. 5 of 1982 as he was only
getting salary under the orders of the High
Court. It is this order which is under
challenge before this Court.

7. In view of decision taken by
Regional Selection Committee, the District
Inspector
of
Schools came to
pass
consequential order on 14.7.2023. The
Committee of Management though is an
appointing authority but has not passed any
order dispensing with services of petitioner
as a consequence to the decision taken by
the Regional Selection Committee as well
as District Inspector of Schools. Thus, these
two
orders
of
Regional
Selection
Committee as well as District Inspector of
Schools are under challenge before this
Court.

8. The basic ground of attack is
that Regional Selection Committee is not
justified in returning a finding that
petitioner was not entitled to regularization
only for the reason that petitioner was
getting salary under the orders of this Court
whereas twin conditions as forwarded
under Clause 8 of sub-section 33 G of
invalid appointment coupled with payment
of salary have to be fulfilled. In absence of
finding qua appointment of the petitioner
against short-term vacancy, Regional Level
Selection Committee was not justified in
passing such order.

9. It is also argued on behalf of the
petitioner that petitioner falls in zone of
consideration for regularization in view of
Section 33G(1) of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982.
Besides above, it is argued on behalf of the
petitioner that interim order was passed by
this Court in Writ Petition SS No. 4740 of
2009 was not blanket stay order as it was
subject to condition that petitioner had been
appointed and had also been working and
since District Inspector of Schools certified
that petitioner was duly appointed and
discharging his duties as Assistant Teacher
in LT Grade in the institution, the payment
of salary came to be made. Still further, it is
submitted by learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, petitioner was continuously
assigned duty of invigilator in board
examinations
regarding
which
several
documents have been brought on record by
means of rejoinder affidavit as annexure 4
from the period running from 1999
onwards.

10. Learned Standing Counsel has
sought to justify the order for the reasons
assigned therein and has submitted that the
case of the petitioner would stand covered
as held by Regional Selection Committee
under Section 33-G (8).

11. Ms. Chaturvedi, learned counsel
appearing
for
the
Committee
of
572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Management has seriously contested the
matter and submitted that neither there was
any short term vacancy of Assistant
Teacher in LT Grade available in the
institution on the date petitioner claims to
have been appointed nor, petitioner ever
discharged his duties as such prior to the
year 2010 when the District Inspector of
Schools passed order for payment of salary.
It is argued by learned counsel for the
Committee of Management that if the
teacher had not been lawfully appointed for
want of requisite vacancy on the date of
selection and appointment and he was
discharging his duties as such, merely
because petitioner produced the document
on the date between cutt-of date prescribed
as under Section 33 G (1) such teacher
would not be entitled to payment of salary.
It is next argued that District Inspector of
Schools had, therefore, was not offering
approval to the appointment of the
petitioner and it was under interim order of
the Court dated 30.08.2010 that District
Inspector was compelled to pass order for
payment of salary to the petitioner.

12. It is argued on behalf of the
Committee of Management that it is just
because petitioner has been getting salary
on account of orders passed by this Court
and consequential order by the education
authority, this would not validate otherwise
invalid appointment of the petitioner.

13. Yet another plea taken by learned
counsel for the Committee of Management
is that on the date of selection of
appointment of petitioner, there was no
Committee of Management with Anoop
Singh, Manager of the Institution, and
therefore, entire selection proceeding was
at farce. According to her, it is all cooked
up story set up by the petitioner and
otherwise there is no such document
available on record. Thus, she justifies the
order passed by the Regional Selection
Committee. However, she submits that
regarding invalid appointment of the
petitioner Manager had submitted a number
of documents, which though has been
referred to but not deliberated and
discussed
by
Regional
Selection
Committee, and therefore, this lacuna was
on the part of the Regional Selection
Committee, otherwise findings would have
been more in support of the management
than what has come in the order impugned.

14. Meeting the argument of learned
counsel appearing for the Committee of
Management Mr. Khare has submitted that
very specific pleading has come to be
raised in Writ Petition vide paragraph 7,8
and 9 that it is on account of promotion of
Saryu Yadav, the then Assistant Teacher as
head master that a short term vacancy arose
in October, 1996 in LT grade which
Manager proceeded to fill up. He submits
that paragraph 7,8 and 9 of writ petition has
been very casually replied to in paragraph
13 of the counter affidavit. There is no
specific denial according to him of the
factum of promotion of Saryu Yadav as
according to him the document that has
been brought on record by way of
attendance register as annexure 4 to the
counter affidavit by Manager itself shows
that Saryu Yadav was working in 2004-05
and onwards also as Head Master until he
retired. He submits that when the Manager
made a deposition regarding retirement of
Saryu Yadav in the year 2010, he
deliberately avoided refer to the post of
head master and simply stated that he
retired as Assistant Teacher. Besides above,
he submits that nowhere in the entire
counter affidavit, it has come to be referred
as to why appointment otherwise would be
bad except the averments that there was no
3 All. Arvind Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
573
effective Committee of Management on
the date of selection and appointment.

15. To this above point, Mr. Khare has
drawn attention of this Court to the attested
signatures of Anoop Singh on 20th May,
1996 prior to appointment of the petitioner
. He further submits that present Manager
has taken over in the year 2017, and
therefore, he cannot have any personal
knowledge of the events that have taken
place in the year 1997. Regarding existence
of short-term vacancy, procedure was duly
followed and selection was held. It is also
argued by learned counsel for the petitioner
that 33-G(8) as sought to be not interpreted
by learned counsel for the Committee of
Management is not not tenable because
provision requires both conditions illegal
appointment and then payment of salary
under the order of a Court to be part to
attract the provision. He has placed reliance
upon the order of this Court in Pramod
Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others in
Writ A 1981 of 2021,

16. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and having perused
the records, I find merit in the submission
so advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner that merely because there was
payment of of salary under the order of the
Court, the claim for regularisation of the
petitioner cannot be rejected treating his
appointment
to
be
invalid.
Every
appointment has to be decided on its own
facts and is to be seen where minimum
required procedure was followed or not
under the relevant rules while making
selection and appointment of the candidate
against short-term/substantive appointment
as the case may be. It so happens that many
times authority do not pass orders for
approval or even after approval for
payment of salary. In such circumstances,
therefore, such candidates are left with no
other option but to have taken justice of the
court of law and in the event, the Court
entertain the petition and passes interim
order, this mean a prima facie case made
out for payment of salary in the eyes of the
Court. Now while considering the claim for
regularization since such candidates are
obtaining payment of salary within their
claim cannot be rejected salary on this
ground. Each case is required to be tested
on its own merits where order of court or
no order if the appointment is valid in law
then regularisation cannot be refused,
however, where the approval is in the teeth
of the Court then authority can take plea
that regularisation will be subject to the
final order that may be passed in the writ
petition.

17. In Pramod Kumar's case
(supra) relied upon by the counsel for
the petitioner, the Court has observed
thus:

A plain reading of Section 33-G
of the U.P. Secondary Education (Services
Selection Board) Act, 1982 makes it clear
that the benefit of regularization to a
Teacher other than the Principal or Head
Master can be extended subject to the said
candidate fulfilling the conditions as
specified in Section 33-G (1) of the said
provision. A plain reading whereof shows
that no such condition exists to the effect
that on account of non-payment of the
salary
for
a
particular
period,
the
consideration of regularization can be
denied to a person.

The submission of the learned
Standing
Counsel
that
the
initial
appointment of the petitioner was an
improper exercise of power cannot be
accepted as the same is not the basis for
denying the benefit of consideration for
574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
regularization to the petitioner in the order
impugned dated 25.1.2020. It is well settled
that the reasoning cannot be supplemented
by means of a counter affidavit or by means
of argument and the validity of the order is
to be seen only on the basis of the
reasoning contained in the order impugned
before the Court concerned. See Mohinder
Singh
Gill
v.
The
Chief
Election
Commissioner, New Delhi; (1978) 1 SCC
405.

That being the case, the order
dated 25.1.2020 is quashed with further
direction to consider the case of the
petitioner for regularization afresh under
Section 33-G of the U.P. Secondary
Education (Services Selection Board) Act,
1982 and in the light of the judgment of this
Court dated 14.9.2018 passed in Writ
Petition No. 13181 of 1997. The said
exercise shall be completed within a period
of four months from the date of filing of a
copy of this order before the Regional Level
Committee.

Considering the fact that I have
allowed the Writ-A No. 8234 of 2020 and
have set aside the order impugned therein
being
the
order
dated
25.1.2020,
accordingly the Writ-A No. 1981 of 2021
also deserves to be allowed as the sole
reason for passing the termination order
dated 6.1.2021 is the rejection of the claim
of the petitioner for regularization vide
order dated 25.1.2020.

Accordingly, the Writ-A No. 1981
of 2021 is also allowed. The order dated
6.1.2021 is set aside.

18. Now coming to the provisions
contained under Section 33G (8) decision
relied upon in Pramod Kumar's case
(supra) conditions are required to be
fulfilled and payment under the interim
order/ final order of the Court. The relevant
provisions as contained under Section 33-G
8 are reproduced hereunder:

33-G (8) Ad hoc teachers, who
have
not
been
appointed
either
in
accordance
with
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Secondary Education Services Commission
(Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 or in
accordance with Section 18 of the Uttar
Pradesh Secondary Education Services
Selection Board Act, 1982 and are
otherwise getting salary only on the basis
of Interim/Final orders of the court shall
not be entitled for regularisation.

19. From the bare reading of the
aforesaid provisions, it is clearly stipulated
that one should be validly appointed and
should be getting salary under the orders of
the Court and now, therefore, if the
candidate has been validly appointed and
yet approval was not granted and has been
therefore getting salary under the orders of
this Court, claim for regularisation cannot
be rejected, The word 'and' is to be read as
conjunctive word 'and' here and not for
disjunctive word 'or' because two negative
conditions are to be read together to have
purposive interpretation of sentence and
impart of the provision.

20. In a very recent judgment of
Supreme Court in the case of Radhey
Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P. in Special
Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3877-3878,
AIR, 2024 SC 260 decided on 03.01.2024
Supreme Court has observed that for any
unfair practise at the end of the officials of
Board, a selecting body as in this case
would be Committee of Management of the
institution where incumbent has been
discharging duties for more than two and
half decades, beneficiaries cannot be
penalized as such candidates were selected
from open market and thus they were
entitled to all service benefits like salary
etc. and if department was of the view that
it was all because of mischief of the
3 All. Arvind Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
575
officials of Board, it would be open for
them to take action against them for
recovery. Vide paragraphs 22 and 23
Supreme Court has held thus:

"22. Assuming the case of the
State to be true and taking it at its highest,
the factual position would come to this,
namely, that while the State sanctioned two
vacancies, the school went ahead and
recruited three. The State has no proof of
commission of any malpractice by the
appellants. The State approved their
appointments, and the approval order till
date
has
not
been
cancelled.
The
appointments have not been terminated. No
action has been taken against the school
and the school continues to receive the aid.

23. Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B. and
Another vs. Suresh Raghunath Bhokare,
(2005) 10 SCC 465 is a case which, on
facts, has a striking resemblance to the
case at hand. The respondent therein had
been recommended by the department and
was
selected
as
line-helper
in
the
appellant-Board. On the ground that the
recommendation
was
allegedly
made
fraudulently, the respondent was dismissed
from service. The complaint preferred by
the respondent had been dismissed by the
Labour
Court.
The
Industrial
Court
reversing the findings of the Labour Court,
quashed the termination of the respondent
therein and directed reinstatement. Writ
Petition filed by the appellant therein was
dismissed by the High Court. This Court,
while observing that in the absence of any
overt act being attributed to the respondent,
held that it could not be inferred that the
respondent had a role in sending fraudulent
list, solely on the basis of the presumption
that he got the job. Para 5 of the judgment
which is crucial for the decision of the
present case is extracted herein below:-

5. The entire basis of the
dismissal of the appellant depends upon the
factum of the alleged misrepresentation
attributed to the respondent. The Industrial
Court in its impugned order has noticed the
fact that the respondent was appointed in
April 1994 pursuant to the selection
procedure followed by the competent
authority and that he was selected by the
panel of Selection Committee consisting of
6 members which included the very same
Social Welfare Officer who had sent the
proposal including the name of the
respondent for appointment. It also noticed
the fact that the selection in question was
made after an oral interview and the
required
test
as
also
the
medical
examination. The Industrial Court also
noticed the fact that the appointment of the
respondent was confirmed after one-year
period and thereafter the respondent has
been working without any complaint. The
said Industrial Court also noticed the fact
that the termination of the respondent was
based on a show- cause notice issued on 57-1999 which was replied to by the
respondent
on
17-7-1999
and
the
termination was made in a summary
procedure permissible under Rule 90(b) of
the Service Regulations. The Industrial
Court after perusing the pleadings and the
notice issued to the respondent came to the
conclusion
that
the
alleged
misrepresentation which is now said to be a
fraud was not specifically pleaded or
proved. In the show-cause notice, no basis
was laid to show what is the nature of fraud
that was being attributed to the appellant.
No particulars of the alleged fraud were
given and the said pleadings did not even
contain any allegation as to how the
appellant was responsible for sending the
so-called fraudulent proposal or what role
he had to play in such proposal being sent.
It also noticed from the evidence of Mr
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Waghmare, Social Welfare Officer who
sent the proposal before the Labour Court
that he did not utter a single word as to
whether the said supplementary list was
ever
called
for
by
the
department
concerned or not. Thus applying the basic
principle of rule of evidence which
requires a party alleging fraud to give
particulars of the fraud and having found
no such particulars, the Industrial Court
came
to
the
conclusion
that
the
respondent could not be held guilty of
fraud. The said finding of the Industrial
Court has been accepted by the High
Court. Mr. Bhasme though contended that
the fraud in question was played in
collusion with the Social Welfare Officer
and 2 other employees of the Board and
action against the said 2 employees of the
Board has been taken, but by that itself we
are unable to accept the argument of Mr.
Bhasme that there is material to support
the contention of the Board that the
appellant had also contributed to making
the misrepresentation at the time of
applying for the job with the Board. In the
absence of any such particulars being
mentioned in the show- cause notice or at
the trial, attributing some overt act to the
respondent, we do not think the Board can
infer that the respondent had a role to
play in sending a fraudulent list solely on
the basis of the presumption that since the
respondent got a job by the said proposal,
the said list is a fraudulent one. It was the
duty of the Board to have specifically
produced the material to prove that the
respondent himself had the knowledge of
such a fraud and he knowingly or in
collusion with other officials indulged in
this fraud. Since there is no such material
on record, on the facts of the instant case,
the Industrial Court and the High Court
have come to the right conclusion that the
alleged fraud has not been established by
the appellants, hence, this is not a fit case
in which interference is called for. This
appeal, therefore, fails and the same is
dismissed."
(emphasis supplied)

21. In view of above the only
exception in matters of such appointment is
where incumbent himself is found guilty or
part of conspiracy as may be alleged by the
department
in
getting
selection
and
appointment however, where it is all done
by
management
and
beneficiary
of
selection has not been responsible, such
harsh action should not be taken after more
than ten years of regular service.

22. In view of above, writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The order dated
25.4.2023 passed by Joint Director of
Education
(Secondary
Education)
Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh as well as
order dated 14.7.2023 passed by District
Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh are hereby
quashed. Respondents are directed to pass
order afresh in the light of observations
made hereinabove. Appropriate order shall
be passed within thirty days from the date
of certified copy of this order.

23. Thus this petition stands allowed
in above terms with no order as to cost.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 576
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.02.2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Writ A No. 11877 of 2011

Noor Ahmad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents