# C/M, Chutki Bhandar Girls Inter College & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 241
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-04
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 14000 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-chutki-bhandar-girls-inter-college-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52825
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

12 All. C/M, Chutki Bhandar Girls Inter College & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
241
16(G)(5) are not fulfilled, thus, the
suspension order passed by the Committee
of Management has been disapproved,
whereas, Section 16(G)(5) laid the first
ground for consideration regarding the
nature of the charges and there is not a
single
whisper
in
the
order
dated
06.10.2025, to discuss the seriousness of
the charges, thus, there seems to be the
non-application of mind of the District
Inspector of Schools.

21. This Court is also aware of the
judgment and order rendered in the case of
Committee of Management, D.P.S.N.
Inter College, Kanpur(supra), wherein, it
is specifically held that the District
Inspector of Schools while taking decision
regarding approval or disapproval, on
suspension
order
proposed
by
the
Committee of Management, shall record,
brief reasons, but so far as the case in hand
is concerned that too is missing, as no
reason has been recorded, for disapproval
of the recommendation of the Committee
of Management, in the order impugned
dated 06.10.2025. Consequently, the order
dated 06.10.2025 is unsustainable in the
eyes of law.

22. Ergo, the impugned order dated
06.10.2025, is hereby quashed.

23. The matter is relegated back to the
District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh
order, on the papers already sent by the
petitioner, on 04.01.2025, as well as the
objection given by respondent no. 6, within
a period of five weeks from the date of this
order, while strictly adhering with the
relevant provisions of law.

24. Parties are directed to cooperate in
the
proceedings
before
the
District
Inspector of Schools concerned.

25. It is further provided that no party
shall take unnecessary adjournments.

26. The present writ petition is
allowed accordingly.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 241
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 14000 of 2025

C/M, Chutki Bhandar Girls Inter College &
Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
 Whether it is incumbent upon the District
Inspector of Schools (DISs) to issue notice to
the Committee of Management (Committee) or
the same shall be heard after receiving the
proposal/recommendation of the Committee of
Management for dismissal of an employee from
service or any punishment is awarded as
prescribed u/s 16(G)(B) even the provision
overtly does not prohibit so?

Headnotes
A. Service Law
- U.P. Intermediate
Education Act: Section 16 G 3(a)(b);
Regulations 31 to 45, of Chapter III of the
Regulations
-
If
there
are
civil
consequences of any decision or order,
such order/decision has to be preceded by
a show cause notice. The basic principle of
natural justice is that before adjudication starts,
the authority concerned should give to the
affected party, a notice of the case, so that he
could defend himself. (Para 20, 22, 24)

B. The law of principle of natural justice
developed with the intent to give the
minimum protection to the rights of the
individuals against the arbitrary act or the
procedure in judicial, quasi judicial and
242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
administrative
functioning
and
that
subsequently stretched upto the person
(legal entity), if prejudice is caused to the
rights. It is trite law that there is implied
applicability to the rules of natural justice unless
statutory provision either specifically or by
necessary implication excludes application of
such rules, in any exercise of power prejudicially
affecting another. (Para 19)

The principle of natural justice recognized
in the jurisprudence in all over world is
known as 'Audi alteram partem', which
means that no one should be unheard and
therefore, the first limb of this principle is to
bring the issue in the notice of the person to
whom the prejudice would be caused and
therefore, the adequate opportunity is required
to enable such person (including the legal
person) to represent. (Para 17)

In present case, the order dated 26-09-2025
has
been
passed,
whereby
the
proposal/recommendation
of
dismissal
of
services of the opposite party no. 6, which was
sent
after
due
consideration
(thoroughly
considering
the
enquiry
report),
by
the
Committee of Management (Committee), has
been disapproved by the DISs, without giving
any notice to the Committee, prior to passing
the order of disapproval. The Committee plays
key role in the day to day administration of any
institution/college. Once the proposal has been
disapproved, the repercussion would be that
such, teacher/headmaster/headmistress, would
work more spontaneously. Infact, in the present
case, there was complaint regarding the rude
and unruly behaviour of the opposite party no. 6
and if the Committee is not given the proper
opportunity of hearing so as to defend it's
proposal/recommendation,
which
was
passed/given after a thorough consideration,
essentially, the prejudice would be caused to
the Committee. (Para 25)

In case, the Committee of Management
recommends
for
discharge,
removal,
dismissal from service or reduce in rank or
subjected to any diminution or emulation,
in case of Principal, Headmaster or Teacher of
the institution as per section 16 G(3)(a) of
Regulations, prior passing the order of
disapproval,
such
Committee
of
Management,
shall
be
heard
with
preceding notice. The hearing should not be
formal, but, it must be substantive. (Para 26)

The order impugned dated 26-09-2025 is
hereby quashed as is against the first principle
of law i.e. the 'principle of natural justice'.
Matter is remitted back to the District Inspector
of Schools-II, Lucknow to take a fresh decision.

Writ petition allowed.(E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Cooper Vs. Wandswords Board of Works,
(1863) 143 ER 414 (Para 18)
2. Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government
(NCT of Delhi) and Others, (2014) 9 SCC 105,
(Para 20)
3. Raghunath Thakur Vs. State of Bihar, (1989)
1 SCC 229] (Para 21)
4. UMC Technologies Private Ltd. Vs. Food
Corporation of India and Another, (2021) 2 SCC
551 (Para 23)

List of Acts
 U.P. Intermediate Education Act.

List of Keywords
 arbitrary, judicial, quasi, administrative, natural
justice, preceding notice, prejudice.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Vikas Singh, Mahendra
Bahadur Singh
For Respondent(s): C.S.C., Indra Pratap
Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Mr. M.B. Singh and Mr.
Vikas Singh, learned counsels for the
petitioners, Mr. Brijendra Singh, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State and Mr. Indra Pratap Singh, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 6.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioners have assailed the
order dated 26-09-2025 passed by the
12 All. C/M, Chutki Bhandar Girls Inter College & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
243
District Inspector of Schools-II, Lucknow,
whereby the matter has been remitted back
to the Committee of Management, while
disapproving the recommendation of the
Committee of Management, for dismissal
of the services of the opposite party no. 6.

3. Briefly stated facts are that Chutki
Bhandar
Girls
Intermediate
College,
Lucknow(hereafter referred to as 'College'),
is recognized by the U.P. Intermediate
Education Board and imparts education
upto intermediate and the college receives
grant-in-aid from the state government and
the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 2021 as well as the U.P.
High
School
and
Intermediate
College(Payment of Salary to the Teachers
and Other Employees) Act,1971, are fully
applicable on the teaching and non teaching
staffs of the college.

4. Factual matrix of the case are that
Smt. Shubhra Pandey, took voluntarily
retirement, who was working as adhoc
principal and thereafter, opposite party no
6, Dr. Suman Shukla, who was working as
Lecturer (Civics) in the college, was given
the charge of the post of Principal, on
officiating basis, on 01-03-2024 and her
signatures were sent for approval and
attestation, before the District Inspector of
Schools (DIOS), which was returned by
him, without any approval.

5. It is said that after the officiating charge
was given to opposite party no. 6, her
behaviour was observed as being rude and
uncalled for and she has also started
disobeying
the
instructions
of
the
Committee of Management of the college.
On several complaints received against the
opposite party no. 6, the preliminary
enquiry was instituted against her and
thereafter, the Committee of Management
in it's meeting dated 13-07-2024, has
unanimously resolved for handing over the
charge to the another seniormost teacher,
namely, Smt. Sunita on place of opposite
party no. 6 and the opposite party no. 6 was
directed to hand over the charge to Smt.
Sunita, but, that was declined by her and
she forcibly continued herself as officiating
Principal and created unpleasant and
awkward situation and thereafter looking
into the unruly behaviour of opposite party
no. 6, under the compelling circumstances,
the Committee of Management suspended
her
and
contemplated
an
enquiry
proceeding and the papers regarding the
approval of suspension have also been
forwarded to the District Inspector of
Schools, Lucknow for it's approval, which
was disapproved and being aggrieved , the
Committee of Management instituted Writ
A No. 8442 of 2025, wherein this Hon'ble
Court passed the order, on 21-11-2025,
whereby the order of disapproval dated 0907-2025, passed by the District Inspector of
Schools, has been quashed and the matter
has been remitted back to the DIOS-II
Lucknow to pass order afresh, which is still
pending consideration.

6. Further, facts are that in the
meanwhile,
the
Enquiry
Committee
constituted by the college of management
for conducting enquiry against the opposite
party no. 6, completed the enquiry
proceedings and submitted enquiry report,
whereafter, the Committee of Management
took a decision on 27-07-2025, for
recommendation
of
the
dismissal
of
services of opposite party no. 6, seeking
approval/consent of the DIOS. In this
regard, the entire papers including the
proposal of the Committee of Management
of the college dated 22-06-2025, was sent
to the District Inspector of Schools vide
letter dated 27-07-2025. On receiving the
244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proposal/recommendation
of
the
Committee of Management, the District
Inspector of Schools issued notice on 1408-2025, to the opposite party no. 6, the
delinquent employee but without affording
any
opportunity
and
associating
the
petitioners, the order impugned dated 2609-2025 has been passed, by which the
recommendation for dismissal of the
services of the opposite party no. 6 has
been disapproved and the records sent by
the Committee of Management has also
been relegated back to the college. The
order of disapproval passed by the DIOS-II,
dated 26-09-2025, is challenged herein.

7. Contention put forth by learned
counsel for the petitioners is that the
Committee
of
Management
after
thoroughly considering the enquiry report,
has resolved/recommended for dismissal of
services of opposite party no. 6 and the
same was sent to the DIOS-II, Lucknow
with it's recommendation alongwith the
relevant documents. He has specifically
submitted that no dismissal order has
finally been passed by the petitioners rather
the
recommendation/proposal
of
Committee of Management was sent for
approval of the D.IO.S. Further submission
is that the DIOS-II, Lucknow, without
hearing the Committee of Management, has
remitted back the matter to the Committee
of Management while disapproving the
proposal/recommendation of the same,
which caused great prejudice to the rights
of the Committee of Management. He
added that the order/letter dated 26-092025 is against the 'principles of natural
justice' and therefore, the order dated 2609-2025 does not stand on it's own legs and
is liable to be quashed.

8. On the other hand, counsels for the
opposite
parties
have
refuted
the
contentions aforesaid and submitted that
the
present
petitioners
have
also
approached this court by way of instituting
Writ A No. 8442 of 2025 while assailing
the disapproval of the suspension order of
opposite party no. 6, passed by the
DIOS,wherein the final Judgment and
Order was passed on 21-11-2025 and the
matter was remitted back to the DIOS-II,
Lucknow to pass a fresh order while
affording the proper opportunity of hearing
to the petitioners as well as the opposite
party no. 6 including the other stakeholders
and he has raised doubt that the order has
still not been placed before the DIOS
concerned. They further submitted that
there is no ambiguity or erroneousness in
the order dated 26-09-2025, assailed herein
this writ petition, thus, no interference is
warranted.

9. In addition, they argued that unless
the DIOS-II, Lucknow takes a decision in
compliance of the order dated 21-11-2025,
passed in Writ A No. 8442 of 2025, on the
approval of the suspension order of the
opposite party no. 6, no further proceeding
can
go
on
regarding
any
recommendation/proposal made by the
Committee of Management, thereof.

10. Upon considering the submissions
of learned counsels for the parties and after
perusal of records, it emerges that the
petitioners have assailed the order of
disapproval of the recommendation of the
Committee of Management/petitioners for
dismissal of services of opposite party no.
6.

11. It is also contended before this
court, that since this court earlier, vide
Judgment and Order dated 21-11-2025,
passed in Writ A No.8442 of 2025, directed
the DIOS-II, Lucknow to take a fresh
12 All. C/M, Chutki Bhandar Girls Inter College & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
245
decision, on the proposal/recommendation
of the suspension of the opposite party no.
6, therefore, no decision could be taken
further, unless the decision in compliance
of the order dated 21-11-2025, is taken by
the DIOS-II, Lucknow.

12. This court finds that disapproval of
the recommendation of the suspension of
the services of the opposite party no. 6 was
under challenge in Writ A No. 8442 of
2025 and there was certain reason for
reaching to the conclusion to quash the
order of disapproval passed by the DIOS-II,
Lucknow, whereas in the present matter,
the recommendation of the Committee of
Management for dismissal of the services
of the opposite party no. 6 which has been
disapproved, is under challenge, which is
altogether different stage, as there is no
restriction that unless the suspension order
is approved or disapproved, no further
proceeding or any enquiry can go on and
therefore, when the enquiry has been
concluded
by
the
Committee
of
Management
and
the
proposal/recommendation
is
made
for
dismissal of the services of the opposite
party no. 6, the District Inspector of
Schools is empowered to consider the
same, under the provisions of section 16 G
3(a)(b)
of
the
Act,
1921
readwith
Regulations.

13. The provision with respect to the
removal, dismissal or discharge from
service and reduction in rank etc. has been
provided under 16 G(3)(b) of the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921(hereafter
referred to as 'Act, 1921'), which reads as
under:-

"16-(G)(3)(b) The Inspector may
approve or disapprove or reduce or en-hance
the punishment or approve or disapprove of
the notice for termination of service proposed
by the management:

Provided that in the cases of
punishment,
before
passing
or-ders,
Inspector shall give an opportunity to the
Principal, the Headmaster or the teacher to
show cause within a fortnight of the receipt of
the notice why the proposed punishment
should not be inflicted."

14. Further, the Regulations 31 to 45, of
Chapter III of the 'Regulations', prescribes the
provision regarding the punishment, enquiry
and suspension of the employees. The
relevant Regulations 35 & 37 are quoted
hereinunder:-

"35. भशकायत अिवा गम्िीर प्रकृभत के आरोपों की
प्रभतकूि आख्या प्राप्त होने पर भमभत, अध्यापकों एविं अन्य
कमाचाररयों के भवर्य में प्रधानाध्यापक अिवा आचाया अिवा प्रबन्धक
को जाूँच अभधकारी भनयुक्त करेगी (अिवा प्रबन्धक स्वयिं जाूँच करेगा
यभि भमभत द्वारा भनयमों के अन्तगात उ े यह अभधकार प्रभतभनभहत हो
गये है) और प्रधान अध्यापक अिवा आचाया के भवर्य में एक िोटी
उप भमभत होगी भज े आख्या यिाशीघ्र प्रस्तुत करने के भनिेश होंगे।

चतुिा श्रेिी के कमाचाररयों के म्बन्ध में प्रधानाचाया /
प्रधानाध्यापक द्वारा भक ी वररष्ठ अध्यापक को जाूँच अभधकारी भनयुक्त
भकया जायेगा।

37. जाूँच-अभधकारी े कायावाही की आख्या तिा
 िंस्तुभत प्राप्त होने के बाि शीघ्र ही कमाचारी को नोभट िेने के बाि
प्रबन्ध भमभत की बैठक कायावाही की आख्या तिा िंस्तुभत पर भवचार
करने के भिए होगी और उ मामिे पर भनिाय िेगी। कमाचारी को, यभि
वह चाहता है भमभत के मक्ष स्वयिं उपभस्ित होने की आज्ञा िी
जायेगी भज े वह अपना अभियोग प्रस्तुत कर के और बैठक में
उपभस्ित भक ी िस्य द्वारा पूिे गये भक ी प्रश्न का उत्तर िे के। तब
 भमभत पूिा आख्या, मस्त म्बभन्धत कागज पत्र भहत भनरीक्षक
अिवा मण्डिीय भनरीभक्षका को उ के द्वारा प्रस्ताभवत कायावाही को
स्वीकृत हेतु प्रेभर्त करेगी।

भकन्तु, चतुिा श्रेिी के कमाचाररयों के म्बन्ध में
भनरीक्षक भनरीभक्षका को स्वीकृभत हेतु कोई आख्या नहीं िेजी
246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
जायेगी। इनके म्बन्ध में उपरोक्त ारी कायावाही भनयुभक्त प्राभधकारी
द्वारा की जायेगी।"

15. The question, which is crop up
herein for adjudication is that whether it is
incumbent upon the District Inspector of
Schools to issue notice to the Committee of
Management or the same shall be heard
after
receiving
the
proposal/
recommendation of the Committee of
Management for dismissal of an employee
from service or any punishment is awarded
as prescribed under Section 16(G)(B) even
the provision overtly does not prohibit so ?

16. When this court examines the
aforesaid issue, it is apparent from the
provision envisaged under 16 G(3)(b) of
the 'Act,1921', that the Inspector may
approve or disapprove or reduce or enhance
the punishment or approve or disapprove of
the notice for termination of the services,
recommended/proposed by the Committee
of Management, provided that in the cases
of
punishment,
before
passing
orders,Inspector shall give an opportunity
to the Principal, Headmaster or the Teacher
to show cause within fortnight of the
receipt of the notice, whereas, there is no
provision has been prescribed in the event
of the disapproval of the proposal of
punishment
of
the
Committee
of
Management
for
issuing
notice
or
preceding opportunity to be heard.

17. The principle of natural justice
recognized in the jurisprudence in all over
word is known as 'Audi alteram partem',
which means that no one should be unheard
and therefore, the first limb of this principle is
to bring the issue in the notice of the person
to whom the prejudice would be caused and
therefore,
the
adequate
opportunity
is
required to enable such person (including the
legal person) to represent. The reasonable
opportunity of hearing, if lacking in any
decision, the same vitiates the proceeding,
wholly and therefore, it is necessary that a
party should be served the notice before any
adverse order is passed against the same. In
fact, this principle was first time enumerated
when the historic document was prepared at
Runnymede in 1215, which is the first
statutory recognition.

18. In the celebrated case of Cooper Vs
Wandswords Board of Works (1863) 143
ER 414, the following principle has been laid
:-

"Even God himself did not pass
sentence upon Adam before he was called
upon to make his defence. 'Adam' (says
God), 'where are thou? Hast thou not eaten
of the tree whereof, I commanded thee that
thou shouldest not eat?

19. In fact, the law of principle of
natural justice developed with the intent
to give the minimum protection to the
rights of the individuals against the
arbitrary act or the procedure in judicial,
quasi
judicial
and
administrative
functioning
and
that
subsequently
stretched upto the person (legal entity), if
prejudice is caused to the rights. It is trite
law that there is implied applicability to
the rules of natural justice unless
statutory provision either specifically or
by
necessary
implication
excludes
application of such rules, in any exercise
of power prejudicially affecting another.

20. It is not out of place to mention the
law rendered in the case of Gorkha
Security Services Vs Government (NCT
of Delhi) and Others, reported in (2014) 9
Supreme Court Cases 105, wherein, in
paragraph no. 16, it has been held as
follows :-
12 All. C/M, Chutki Bhandar Girls Inter College & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
247

"16. It is a common case of the
parties that the blacklisting has to be
preceded by a show-cause notice. Law in
this regard is firmly grounded and does not
even demand much amplification. The
necessity of compliance with the principles
of natural justice by giving the opportunity
to the person against whom action of
blacklisting is sought to be taken has a
valid and solid rationale behind it. With
blacklisting,
many
civil
and/or
evil
consequences follow. It is described as
"civil death" of a person who is foisted
with the order of blacklisting. Such an
order is stigmatic in nature and debars
such a person from participating in
government
tenders
which
means
precluding
him
from
the
award
of
government contracts.

21. Again, in Raghunath Thakur v.
State of Bihar [(1989) 1 SCC 229] the
aforesaid principle has been reiterated in
the following manner:-

"4. Indisputably, no notice had
been given to the appellant of the proposal
of blacklisting the appellant. It was
contended
on
behalf
of
the
State
Government that there was no requirement
in the rule of giving any prior notice before
blacklisting any person. Insofar as the
contention that there is no requirement
specifically
of
giving any notice
is
concerned, the respondent is right. But it is
an implied principle of the rule of law that
any order having civil consequence should be
passed only after following the principles of
natural justice. It has to be realised that
blacklisting any person in respect of business
ventures has civil consequence for the future
business of the person concerned in any
event. Even if the rules do not express so, it is
an elementary principle of natural justice that
parties affected by any order should have
right
of
being
heard
and
making
representations against the order. In that
view of the matter, the last portion of the
order insofar as it directs blacklisting of the
appellant in respect of future contracts,
cannot be sustained in law. In the premises,
that portion of the order directing that the
appellant be placed in the blacklist in respect
of future contracts under the Collector is set
aside. So far as the cancellation of the bid of
the appellant is concerned, that is not
affected. This order will, however, not
prevent the State Government or the
appropriate authorities from taking any
future steps for blacklisting the appellant if
the Government is so entitled to do in
accordance with law i.e. after giving the
appellant due notice and an opportunity of
making representation. After hearing the
appellant, the State Government will be at
liberty to pass any order in accordance with
law indicating the reasons therefor. We,
however, make it quite clear that we are not
expressing any opinion on the correctness or
otherwise of the allegations made against the
appellant. The appeal is thus disposed of."

22. It has been so held in the abovesaid
case that if there are civil consequences of
any decision or order, such order/decision has
to be preceded by a show cause notice.

23. The aforesaid principle has further
been reiterated by the Hon?ble Apex Court
in the case of UMC Technologies Private
Ltd. Vs Food Corporation of India and
Another, reported in (2021) 2 Supreme
Court Cases 551. Paragraph no. 13 of the
said
Judgment
is
relevant,which
is
extracted as follows :-

"13. At the outset, it must be
noted that it is the first principle of civilised
jurisprudence that a person against whom
any action is sought to be taken or whose
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
right or interests are being affected should
be given a reasonable opportunity to
defend himself. The basic principle of
natural justice is that before adjudication
starts, the authority concerned should give
to the affected party a notice of the case
against him so that he can defend himself.
Such notice should be adequate and the
grounds necessitating action and the
penalty/action
proposed
should
be
mentioned specifically and unambiguously.
An order travelling beyond the bounds of
notice
is
impermissible
and
without
jurisdiction to that extent. This Court in
Nasir
Ahmad
v.
Custodian
General,
Evacuee
Property
[Nasir
Ahmad
v.
Custodian General, Evacuee Property,
(1980) 3 SCC 1] has held that it is essential
for the notice to specify the particular
grounds on the basis of which an action is
proposed to be taken so as to enable the
noticee to answer the case against him. If
these conditions are not satisfied, the
person cannot be said to have been granted
any reasonable opportunity of being heard.

24. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that the basic principle of natural justice is
that before adjudication starts, the authority
concerned should give to the affected party,
a notice of the case, so that he could defend
himself.

25. This court finds that the order
dated
26-09-2025
has
been
passed,
whereby the proposal/recommendation of
dismissal of services of the opposite party
no. 6, has been disapproved, which was
sent after due consideration, by the
Committee
of
Management.
The
Committee
of
Management
after
thoroughly considering the enquiry report,
has
come
to
the
conclusion
to
propose/recommend the dismissal of the
services of the opposite party no. 6 but the
District Inspector of Schools admittedly has
not given any notice to the Committee of
Management, prior passing the order of
disapproval
of
the
proposal
of
the
Committee of Management. It is infact the
Committee of Management, which plays
key role in the day to day administration of
any institution/college. Once the proposal
is been disapproved,the repercussion would
be
that
such,
teacher/
headmaster/
headmistress,would
work
more
spontaneously. Infact, in the present case,
there was complaint regarding the rude and
unruly behaviour of the opposite party no.
6 and if the Committee of Management is
not given the proper opportunity of hearing
so
as
to
defend
it's
proposal/
recommendation, which was infact passed/
given after a thorough consideration,
essentially, the prejudice would be caused
to the Committee of Management.

26.
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
submissions and discussions, this court is
of the considered opinion that in case, the
Committee of Management recommends
for discharge, removal, dismissal from
service or reduce in rank or subjected to
any diminution or emulation, in case of
Principal, Headmaster or Teacher of the
institution as per section 16 G(3)(a) of
Regulations, prior passing the order of
disapproval,
such
Committee
of
Management, shall be heard with preceding
notice. The hearing should not be formal,
but, it must be substantive.

27. Consequently, this court finds that
the order impugned herein is against the
first principle of law i.e. the 'principle of
natural justice'. Ergo, the order impugned
dated 26-09-2025 is hereby quashed.

28. The matter is remitted back to the
District Inspector of Schools-II, Lucknow
12 All. Dr. Vijay Bahadur Jaiswal & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
249
to
take
a
fresh
decision,
on
the
proposal/recommendation
of
the
Committee
of
Management,
strictly
adhering to the provisions of law and
affording
opportunity
of
hearing
to
Committee of Management, within the
period of six weeks, from the date a
certified copy of this order is produced
before him.

29. With the aforesaid observations,
the instant writ petition is hereby allowed.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 249
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 14077 of 2025

Dr. Vijay Bahadur Jaiswal & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
 Whether order dated 19.11.2025 is valid? Order
dated 19.11.2025 has been passed mainly on
the ground that the minimum eligibility criteria
provided vide circular dated 29.03.2011 issued
by the ICAR, has not been followed, rather
another eligibility criterion, which has been
mentioned in the advertisement, and therefore,
the whole selection proceedings has been stated
to be unlawful.

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Uttar Pradesh (Krishi
Evam
Prodyogik
Vishwavidyalaya)
Adhiniyam, 1958: Chapter 21: Section
28(r) - Every order has to stand on its own
legs - In present case as the findings recorded
regarding the circular dated 29.03.2011 issued
by the ICAR, stated to be applicable regarding
eligibility
criteria/qualifications,
in
the
appointment of the Program-Coordinator of
K.V.K. of the respondent university, is non est,
therefore, the whole order is erroneous and
ambiguous. (Para 30)

B. The circular dated 29.03.2011, rather the
circular which is as per the argument of the
counsel for the petitioners dated 26.04.2012,
which is ought to have been considered,
have been ignored by the Board of
Management, therefore, there was no
question so as to assume by any authority,
while publishing the advertisement to
prescribe the minimum eligibility criteria
for the appointment of the post of
Program Coordinator.

The
decision
of
the
enquiry
committee
constituted by the Chancellor has been taken
into consideration and the same has been
accepted, but there is no discussion of any kind
over the same, by the Board of Management of
the University. (Para 26)

It has been noticed the provisions regarding
number and qualification of employees of the
University, as is provided u/s 28(r) of Chapter
XXI of the Act of 1958, which says that the
number of Teachers in each department and
their qualification, shall be recommended by the
academic council which would be approved by
the Board of Management. Admittedly, in the
150th meeting of the Board of Management, the
agenda no. 10 was considered and discussed
and the agenda was approved w.r.t. the
qualification which, in fact, was mentioned in
the advertisement for appointment of the post
of
Program
Coordinator.
The
aforesaid
resolution of the Board of Management has
never been revoked or recalled by any
competent authority. (Para 27)

C. The report of the enquiry committee,
which is mentioned in the resolution of
the Board, by which the advertisement no.
5/2014 has been cancelled, has only been
mentioned and there is no discussion that
why
the
Board
of
Management
is
accepting the report and canceling the
advertisement no. 5/2014.

The Enquiry Committee has not unanimously
come to the conclusion regarding the charges
leveled against the petitioners, to be found