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

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1180
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-21
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 8442 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-chutki-bhandar-girls-inter-college-lko-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52633
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

C.S.C., Indra Pratap Singh, Ravi Kant
Shukla

Issue for consideration
 Whether the proper and fair opportunity of
hearing is accorded to the petitioners, while
passing
the
impugned
order
(dated
09.07.2025)?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - If one person hears and
another decides, then personal hearing
becomes empty formality, which offends
basic principle of judicial procedure. (Para
15, 16)

In present case, it is apparent that the
authority, who was holding charge of the
District Inspector of Schools, has concluded the
hearing on 25-06-2025, whereas the order
impugned has been passed after about 14 days
i.e. on 09-07-2025 by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the
District Inspector Schools-II, Lucknow. (Para
14)

The order impugned dated 09-07-2025 is
apparent that hearing was completed by the
Incharge District Inspector of Schools namely,
Manisha Dwivedi, but, opportunity of hearing
has not been afforded prior to pass the said
order. It is incomprehensible that why the DISs
was in hurry to pass the order impugned, even
without giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners and therefore, the whole proceeding
is doubted. (Para 17, 18)

The order impugned dated 09-07-2025 is
passed, in utter violation of the principles
of natural justice, thus, the same is
unsustainable in the eyes of law.

The matter is remitted back to the District
Inspector of Schools-II, Lucknow

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)
11 All. C/M, Chutki Bhandar Girls Inter College, Lko & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1181
Case Law Cited

## Text

1180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
detaining Authority as well as the State
Government to come to a subjective
satisfaction that the petitioner was required to
be detained under the NSA. The grounds of
detention are well informed, where details of
acts and the resulting facts which showed
violation of public order, have been copiously
noticed by the detaining Authority. The way
the even tempo of life was affected, has been
cited with definitive instances in the grounds
of detention. The possibility of the detenue
repeating acts that may lead to further
violation of public order have also been
recorded. The subjective satisfaction, in that
regard also, is founded on valid and objective
material about information that the accused
was out to commit further acts of reprisal, not
only against the victim of the crime, but
members of the other community, at large, in
order to teach them a lesson.

62. It is not for this Court to gauge the
sufficiency of reasons that made the
detaining Authority act under the NSA. We
are not a Court of appeal to look into the
sufficiency of material or its authenticity,
unless it be glaringly absurd and come to a
conclusion contrary to that of the Detaining
Authority.

63. In the result, we do not find merit
in this habeas corpus writ petition. It is,
hereby, dismissed.
-----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1180
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 8442 of 2025

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

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Vikas Singh, Mahendra Bahadur Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Indra Pratap Singh, Ravi Kant
Shukla

Issue for consideration
 Whether the proper and fair opportunity of
hearing is accorded to the petitioners, while
passing
the
impugned
order
(dated
09.07.2025)?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - If one person hears and
another decides, then personal hearing
becomes empty formality, which offends
basic principle of judicial procedure. (Para
15, 16)

In present case, it is apparent that the
authority, who was holding charge of the
District Inspector of Schools, has concluded the
hearing on 25-06-2025, whereas the order
impugned has been passed after about 14 days
i.e. on 09-07-2025 by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the
District Inspector Schools-II, Lucknow. (Para
14)

The order impugned dated 09-07-2025 is
apparent that hearing was completed by the
Incharge District Inspector of Schools namely,
Manisha Dwivedi, but, opportunity of hearing
has not been afforded prior to pass the said
order. It is incomprehensible that why the DISs
was in hurry to pass the order impugned, even
without giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners and therefore, the whole proceeding
is doubted. (Para 17, 18)

The order impugned dated 09-07-2025 is
passed, in utter violation of the principles
of natural justice, thus, the same is
unsustainable in the eyes of law.

The matter is remitted back to the District
Inspector of Schools-II, Lucknow

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)
11 All. C/M, Chutki Bhandar Girls Inter College, Lko & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1181
Case Law Cited
1. Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Others Vs
Andhra
Pradesh
State
Road
Transport
Corporation and Another, AIR 1959 SC 308 (Para
15)
2. Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association
Vs Designated Authority and Others, (2011) 2
SCC 258 (Para 16)

List of Acts
Intermediate Education Act, 1921; U.P. High
School and Intermediate College (Payment of
Salary to the Teachers and Other Employees),
Act, 1971.

List of Keywords
Service,
Suspension,
embezzlement,
misconduct, violation, natural justice.

Appearances for Parties
For
Petitioner:
Vikas
Singh,
Mahendra
Bahadur Singh
For Respondent: C.S.C., Indra Pratap Singh,
Ravi Kant Shukla

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

1. Heard Mr. M.B. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Dr. Udai Veer
Singh and Mr. Brijendra Singh, Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Mr.
I.P. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 6 and perused the records.

2. The challenge is laid to the order
dated 09-07-2025 passed by the District
Inspector of Schools-II, Lucknow, whereby
the suspension of the opposite party no. 6
has been disapproved.

3. Briefly stated facts, are that Chukti
Bhandar
Girls
Intermediate
College,
Lucknow(hereafter referred to as 'College')
is recognized by the U.P. Intermediate
Education Board and the same receives
grant-in-aid from the state government.
Smt. Shubhra Pandey was working as
Principal of the college on adhoc basis,
who retired from service on 29-02-2024 as
she took voluntary retirement and the
opposite party no. 6, namely, Dr. Suman
Shukla, Lecturer(Civics) took the charge of
the post of Principal of the college, on
officiating basis, on 01-03-2024. Several
complaints were reached to the committee
regarding
uncalled
for
behaviour
of
opposite party no. 6, towards teaching and
non-teaching
staffs
of
the
college,
whereafter, in prima-facie, enquiry, the
complaint was found correct and therefore,
the management directed the opposite party
no. 6 to hand over the charge to the second
senior most Lecturer(History) namely, Smt.
Sunita and this proposal was sent to the
District Inspector of Schools, whereafter,
her signature was attested and for this
reason, the opposite party no. 6 became
annoyed and started raising complaints
against the petitioners.

4. In the meeting of the committee of
the management dated 08-07-2024, an
unanimous
decision
was
taken.
The
opposite party no. 6 denied to hand over the
charge to the newly appointed officiating
Principal and even after several proposal of
the committee of management and the
order by the manager, the same was not
complied with. During the period of
officiating charge of Principal, the opposite
party no. 6 committed many serious
financial
as
well
as
administrative
irregularities, by which, not only the
reputation of the college, became demean,
but, financial loss occurred as well. In this
view of the matter, the committee of
management took a decision to initiate
disciplinary enquiry against the opposite
party no. 6, regarding the financial
embezzlement and misconduct and she was
put under suspension. The decision taken
by the committee of management regarding
1182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
suspension of opposite party no. 6 was sent
to the District Inspector of Schools (II),
Lucknow for it?s approval, whereafter, the
opposite
party
no.
6
submitted
the
representation on 19-02-2025, before the
Director,
Secondary
Education,
who
instructed the District Inspector of Schools
to
do
the
needful
within
15
days,whereafter, the District Inspector of
Schools-II, Lucknow issued a letter on 2703-2025 to Dr. Ragini Mishra, Principal,
Government Girls Intermediate College,
Narhi Lucknow and Smt. Ankita Singh,
Principal, Government Girls Intermediate
College,
Chhoti
Jubliee,
Lucknow,
directing them to make spot inspection and
submit their report, who thereafter visited
premises of the college and met with the
Manager as well as the opposite party no. 6
and teaching and non-teaching staffs of the
college and submitted a report. Thereafter,
the order dated 13-07-2024 passed by the
petitioner
no.
2,
was
disapproved.
Subsequently, on 16-05-2025, an ex-parte
order was passed by the District Inspector
of Schools (II), Lucknow without referring
the enquiry report dated 08-04-2025 and
the representation dated 09-04-2025, which
was assailed by the petitioners while
preferring Writ A No. 5907 of 2025, which
was allowed vide Judgment and Order
dated 29-05-2025 and the matter was
remanded back to the District Inspector of
Schools, while quashing the impugned
order therein, dated 16-05-2025, for taking
a decision afresh, in accordance with law,
and after affording the opportunity of
hearing to all the stake holders, which was
served in the office of the District Inspector
of Schools and thereafter, the notice on 1306-2025 was issued to the petitioners and
the opposite party no. 6, fixing a date of
hearing on 19-06-2025, whereafter, the
petitioner no. 2 appeared in the office of the
District Inspector of Schools and sought
adjournment and thereafter, vide letter
dated 20-06-2025, the date for hearing was
fixed on 25-06-2025, while requiring the
presence of the parties.

5. On the date of hearing, i.e. on 2506-2025, the petitioner no. 2 and opposite
party no. 6 appeared in the office of the
District Inspector of Schools-II, Lucknow,
but, one Smt. Manisha Dwivedi, Deputy
Inspector, Angilo Indian School having the
charge of D.I.O.S., was present as Incharge
D.I.O.S., before whom, the reply was
submitted, in response to the notice dated
20-06-2025 and the petitioner no. 2 was
told by the Incharge, District Inspector of
Schools that she is authorized to accept the
documents, but, she is not authorized for
affording the oral opportunity of hearing
and it is also informed that the date for
personal hearing shall be given to the
parties, for the next date, which will be
informed to them later on. After 25-062025, the impugned order has been passed
on 09-07-2025, while disapproving the
suspension
order
resolved
by
the
petitioners.

6. Contention put forth by the learned
counsel for the petitioners is that from the
very first day, the opposite party no. 6, Dr.
Suman Shukla had become challenge to the
administration of the college ad she had
committed several irregularities, financial
as well as administrative, both, and when
this fact came into the knowledge of the
committee of management, the preliminary
enquiry was done and when it was found
that she is involved in committing such
irregularities, an enquiry was contemplated
and the opposite party no. 6 was put under
suspension. He submitted that after the
order passed by this court in Writ C No.
8708 of 2024, the matter proceeded but, on
the date fixed i.e. on 25-06-2025, the
11 All. C/M, Chutki Bhandar Girls Inter College, Lko & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1183
Incharge, District Inspector of Schools had
received the documents and the petitioner
no. 2 was told that the date for personal
hearing will be fixed by the District
Inspector of Schools, but directly, the order
dated 09-07-2025 has been passed and the
petitioners have been deprived of the
invaluable right of fair opportunity of
hearing, before the District Inspector of
Schools.

7. In addition, he argued that as per the
settled proposition of law, it is not
permitted that the matter will be heard by
one authority and the final order would be
passed by another authority.

8. Concluding his arguments, he
submits that the order dated 09-07-2025 is
against
the
first
principle
i.e.
fair
opportunity of hearing and therefore, the
same is unsustainable in the eyes of law,
therefore the same is liable to be quashed.

9. On the other hand, learned counsels
appearing for the opposite parties have
opposed the contentions aforesaid and
submitted that from the very first day, the
petitioners were not pleased with the
opposite party no. 6 as the opposite party
no. 6 has refuted to act upon the dictates of
the
petitioners,which
were
not
in
consonance with law. He added that order
impugned is enough to show that the
opportunity of hearing has been afforded to
the petitioners as the date was fixed on 2506-2025 and the petitioner no. 2 appeared
and submitted the written statement and the
documents as well. He also submits that the
impugned order is not without jurisdiction
as the same has been passed by the District
Inspector of Schools, as is provided under
the
Intermediate
Education
Act,1921
(hereinafter referred to as ?Act, 1921?) read
with the regulations made thereunder. He
submits that the order dated 09-07-2025
has been challenged for the sake of
challenge only and there is no valid reason
or ground to assail the same. Therefore,
submission is that the present writ petition
is liable to be dismissed.

10. Upon considering the submissions
of the learned counsels for the parties and
after perusal of record, it is apparent that
the college is recognized and an aided
institution and the provisions of ?Act,
1921? and the regulations made thereunder
readwith
U.P.
High
School
and
Intermediate College (Payment of Salary to
the Teachers and Other Employees), Act,
1971, are very well applicable.

11. The opposite party no. 6 was given
officiating charge of the Principal of the
college and after some time, it came into
the knowledge of the petitioners that
certain irregularities on financial and
administrative sides are caused by her and
therefore, the preliminary enquiry was
conducted and thereafter, the full fledged
enquiry was contemplated and the opposite
party no. 6 was placed under suspension by
the decision taken by committee of
management of the college and once the
same was sent for approval by the District
Inspector
of
Schools,
which
once
disapproved and the same was challenged
vide Writ A No. 5907 of 2025,wherein the
order of disapproval dated 16-05-2025 was
quashed and the District Inspector of
Schools was directed to pass a fresh order,
whereafter the order impugned dated 0907-2025 has been passed.

12. The mute question involved in this
matter is that whether the proper and fair
opportunity of hearing is accorded to the
petitioners, while passing the order dated
09-07-2025.
1184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. When this court examines the
aforesaid question, it is apparent that in
compliance of the order dated 29-05-2025,
passed in Writ Petition No. 5907 of 2025,
the District Inspector of Schools, proceeded
to take a decision on the suspension order
passed against the opposite party no. 6,
whereafter, the date was fixed on 20-062025, and subsequently, on 25-06-2025. It
emerges from the impugned order itself
that on 25-06-2025, one Manisha Dwivedi,
Deputy Inspector,Angilo Indian School was
Incharge
as
District
of
Schools(II)
Lucknow, who took the written statement
as well as other documents and as per the
case of the petitioner no. 2, he was
informed
that
he
would
be
given
opportunity of hearing, subsequently. After
25-06-2025, the order has been passed on
09-07-2025, wherein it is mentioned as
follows :-

"प्रकरण के मनस्तारण हेतु अधोहस्तािरी के पत्राांक-
मा0/686-87/2025-26 मदनाांक-20.06.2025 द्वारा पुनः
सुनवाई की मतमथ 25.06.2025 मनधाटररत की गयी। इस मतमथ को
प्रबन्धक चुटकी भण्र्ार गल्सट इ० कालेज तखनऊ द्वारा अपना
मलमखत अमभकधन एवां साक्ष्य उपलब्ध कराया गया, एवां िीमती
सुमन शुक्ला कायटवाहक प्रधानाचायाट (मनलमम्बत) सुनवाई में
उपमस्थत हुई, उनके उनके द्वारा कहााँ गया मक मैने अपना मलमखत
अमभकथन पूवं सुनवाई में उपलब्ध करा मदया गया है। इस प्रकार
सुनवाई पूणट हुई।"

14. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is
apparent that the authority, who was
holding charge of the District Inspector of
Schools, has concluded the hearing on 2506-2025, whereas the order impugned has
been passed after about 14 days i.e. on 0907-2025 by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the District
Inspector Schools-II, Lucknow.

15. This court is aware of the law
rendered
in
the
case
of
Gullapalli
Nageswara Rao and Others Vs Andhra
Pradesh
State
Road
Transport
Corporation and Another, reported in AIR
1959 SC 308. In the aforesaid case, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if one
person hears and another decides, then
personal hearing becomes empty formality,
which offends basic principle of judicial
procedure.

16. In another case reported in (2011) 2
Supreme Court Cases 258, Automotive
Tyre
Manufacturers
Association
Vs
Designated Authority and Others, the same
law is adopted as is held in the case of
Gullapalli Nageswara Rao(Supra).

17. The order impugned dated 09-072025 is apparent that hearing was completed
by the Incharge District Inspector of Schools
namely, Manisha Dwivedi, but, opportunity
of hearing has not been afforded prior to pass
the said order and therefore, the analogy
drawn in the aforementioned cases, wherein
the law has been settled, is also applicable to
the present case.

18. This court has also failed to
understand that why the District Inspector of
Schools was in hurry to pass the order
impugned,
even
without
giving
an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and
therefore, the whole proceeding is doubted.

19. Consequently, this court finds that
the order impugned dated 09-07-2025 is
passed, in utter violation of the principles of
natural justice, thus, the same is unsustainable
in the eyes of law.

20. Resultantly, the order dated 09-072025 is hereby quashed.

21. The matter is remitted back to the
District Inspector of Schools-II, Lucknow
to pass order afresh, while affording proper
11 All. Aditya Dhanraj Ashok Vs. Vice Chairman Ghaziabad Development Authority Ghaziabad &
 Anr.
1185
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners,
the opposite party no. 6 and the other stake
holders, if any,within a period of six weeks
from the date a certified copy of this order
is produced before him.

22. The petitioners as well as the
opposite party no. 6 are directed to
cooperate with the proceedings, as is
directed to be completed by the District
Inspector of Schools(II), Lucknow.

23. The Writ Petition is allowed
accordingly.

24. Consequences to follow.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1185
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 15805 of 2025

Aditya Dhanraj Ashok ...Petitioner
Versus
Vice Chairman Ghaziabad Development
Authority Ghaziabad & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Om Prakash Mishra, Suraj Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Tejasvi Misra

Issue for consideration
 Whether petitioner is eligible for compassionate
appointment?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Recruitment of
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974: Rule 5 -
Compassionate
appointment
is
a
concession and not a right. Dependents of
the deceased Government employee are
made eligible by virtue of the policy on
compassionate
appointment
and
they
must fulfill the norms laid down by the
State's policy. The norms prevailing on the
date of consideration of the application
should be the basis for consideration of
claim.
The
applicant-dependent
must
strictly fall within the parameters as on
the date of the government servants. (Para
7 to 9)

The petitioner does not fulfill the criteria as
framed under Rule-5 of the Rules, 1974 as his
mother (spouse of deceased employee) is
working as Clerk in NOIDA Authority. (Para 11)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1.
Steel
Authority
of
India
Limited
Vs.
Madhusudan Das & Ors., (2008) 15 SCC 560
(Para 7)
2. The Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr.
Vs. V. Somyashree, AIR 2021 SC 5620 (Para 8)
3. Ravi Kumar Jeph Vs. Joint Director, Office of
the Chief Commissioner, CGST and Central
Excise (Jaipur Zone), Jaipur, Rajasthan &
another, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4928 of
2020, 2023RJ-JP:41338-DB (Para 9)

List of Acts
U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government
Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

List of Keywords
Service, compassionate appointment, financial
crisis, criteria.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner: Om Prakash Mishra, Suraj
Mishra
For Respondent: Tejasvi Misra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Tejasvi Misra, learned
counsel for the respondents.