# Chandrashekhar Tiwari v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 1055
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-07
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 70 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandrashekhar-tiwari-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49772
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Special Law -Allahabad High Court
Rules,
1952
-Ch.
VII
Rule
5-U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921-Section
16-D(4)-State
Govt.
superseded
the
Committee of Management in exercise of
power under Section 16 D(4) of the ActOpportunity of hearing was not afforded
by State Govt. while superseding the
Management-State Government under law
is
empowered
to
supersede
the
Committee of Management by an order
'for reasons to be recorded'-State Govt.
was thus enjoined with the duty to
consider the reply and give reasons for not
accepting the reply, which has not been
done-Thus, resulted in gross violation of
principles of natural justice-Hence, no
interference requires. (Para 1 to 20)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
Committee of Mgmt. Gautam Buddhha Inter
College & anr.. Vs St. of U.P & ors.

## Text

3 All. Chandrashekhar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1055
matter has been remitted back to the Trial
Court to decide the suit afresh on merit.

15. No interference is required against
the impugned judgment.

16. Writ petition is devoid of merit
and, is accordingly, dismissed.

17.

However,
Trial
Court
-
Upziladhikari, Kanpur Nagar is directed to
decide the suit under Section 144 of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 after framing issue
and permitting authorities to lead evidence,
in accordance with law. The suit will be
decided, expeditiously, preferably within a
period of one year from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 1055
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Special Appeal No. 70 of 2023

Chandrashekhar Tiwari ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Sri G.K. Singh
(Sr. Advocate)

A. Special Law -Allahabad High Court
Rules,
1952
-Ch.
VII
Rule
5-U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921-Section
16-D(4)-State
Govt.
superseded
the
Committee of Management in exercise of
power under Section 16 D(4) of the ActOpportunity of hearing was not afforded
by State Govt. while superseding the
Management-State Government under law
is
empowered
to
supersede
the
Committee of Management by an order
'for reasons to be recorded'-State Govt.
was thus enjoined with the duty to
consider the reply and give reasons for not
accepting the reply, which has not been
done-Thus, resulted in gross violation of
principles of natural justice-Hence, no
interference requires. (Para 1 to 20)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
Committee of Mgmt. Gautam Buddhha Inter
College & anr.. Vs St. of U.P & ors.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J. & Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, counsel
for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel
for the State respondents and Sri G.K.
Singh learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Sri H.P. Sahi for respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

2. This intra-court appeal arises out of
judgment and order dated 19.12.2022
passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C
No. 37460 of 2022 filed by respondent
Nos. 5 and 6 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
petitioners').

3. The petitioners in the Writ Petition
were the Committee of Management of
Goswami Tulsi Das Inter College, a
recognized Institution under the U.P.
Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and its
Manager (respondents no.5 & 6 in the
instant appeal). They had, in the writ
petition,
assailed
the
order
dated
04.11.2022 passed by the State Government
superseding the Committee of Management
1056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in exercise of power under Section 16-D(4)
of the Act. The writ petition has been
allowed on the sole ground that opportunity
of hearing was not afforded to the
petitioners by the State Government while
superseding the Management. The Writ
Court has quashed the order impugned in
the writ petition and has remitted the matter
back to the State Government for passing a
fresh order after affording opportunity of
hearing to the writ petitioners.

4. The brief facts of the case are that
the appellant herein (respondent No. 5 in
the writ petition) had made complaint
against the petitioners and on basis thereof,
the Director of Education, on 27.05.2021,
recommended to the State Government to
supersede the Committee of Management
and appoint an Authorized Controller in its
place.

5. In pursuance thereof, it seems that
the
Special
Secretary
(Secondary
Education) heard the parties on 24.06.2021
and 28.12.2021. The petitioners filed a
detailed objection on 28.12.2021 to the
charges levelled against the Committee of
Management and the appellant also filed
his reply on the same date. The State
Government
vide
its
letter
dated
31.12.2021 forwarded the reply submitted
by the Committee of Management and the
appellant dated 28.12.2021 for factual
examination and recommendation by the
Director (Secondary) U.P. In pursuance
thereof, the Director (Secondary) U.P.
obtained reports from the Joint Director of
Education,
Gorakhpur
and
District
Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar wherein
they recommended for superseding the
Committee of Management in exercise of
power under Section 16-D (4) of the Act on
three charges mentioned therein. It was
followed by passing of the order impugned
in the writ petition dated 4.11.2022 relying
on the recommendation of the Director of
Education, (Secondary), Uttar Pradesh
dated 21.03.2022.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant
vehemently contended that the impugned
order of learned Single Judge proceeds on a
wrong assumption of fact that opportunity
of hearing was not given to the petitioners
before superseding the Committee of
Management. In support of his contention
he has placed reliance on the recitals
contained in the impugned order to the
effect that the Special Secretary (Secondary
Education), U.P. heard the parties on
24.06.2021 and 28.12.2021.

7. He has also invited the attention of
the
Court
towards
a
notice
dated
16.03.2022 issued by Deputy Secretary,
U.P. Government addressed to Director of
Education
(Secondary)
and
District
Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar with copy
thereof
endorsed
to
the
Manager,
Committee
of
Management
of
the
Institution fixing 21.03.2022 as date for
hearing in connection with the proceedings
relating to appointment of Authorized
Controller. It is submitted that the said
communication further reveals that yet
another opportunity of hearing was given to
the parties on 21.03.2022 and thus it is
submitted
that
learned
Single
Judge
committed an error apparent on the face of
record in remitting the matter back to the
State Government for affording opportunity
of hearing to the writ petitioners.

8. Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior
Counsel, appearing for the petitioners,
submitted that the hearing which was
afforded to the parties on 24.06.2021 and
28.12.2021, was not sufficient, inasmuch as
the recommendation for superseding the
3 All. Chandrashekhar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1057
Committee of Management was made by
the Director of Education subsequently,
vide its letter dated 21.03.2022 and
thereafter no opportunity of hearing was
granted. He further submits that the
petitioners were never served with any
notice dated 16.03.2022 fixing 21.03.2022
as date of hearing, nor any hearing took
place on that date.

9. Sri Siddharth Khare, learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the
Director of Education initially made a
recommendation
for
superseding
the
Committee of Management vide its letter
dated 27.05.2021 and consequently the
hearing held on 24.06.2021 and 28.12.2021
was sufficient and the writ petitioners
cannot complain of breach of principles of
natural justice. He submits that although
Director of Education (Secondary) made
another recommendation on 21.03.2022 for
superseding the Committee of Management
but it was based on same charges and,
therefore, no fresh opportunity of hearing
was required to be given to the writ
petitioners.

10. Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in
reply submitted that the procedure adopted
by the State Government after the hearing
took place on 28.12.2021 was in gross
violation of principles of natural justice. It
is submitted that the State Government
called for a report from Director of
Education (Secondary) in context of the
reply submitted by the petitioners and the
appellant and thereafter based on his
recommendation contained in letter dated
21.03.2022,
proceeded
to
pass
the
impugned order without supplying its copy
to the petitioners.

11. In other words, the submission is
that
when
there
was
a
fresh
recommendation by Director of Education
by letter dated 21.03.2022, which alone had
been made basis for passing the impugned
order, it was incumbent upon the State
Government
to
have
afforded
fresh
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
He further submits that even otherwise, the
impugned order is bad in the eyes of law,
inasmuch as it does not take into
consideration the detailed reply submitted
by the petitioner on 28.12.2021 denying
each and every charge levelled against the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
Institution.

12. We have considered the rival
submissions and perused the material on
record.

13. The Writ Court while remitting
the matter to the State Government has
placed reliance on a judgment of learned
Single
Judge
in
Committee
of
Management, Gautam Buddha Inter
College and Another Vs. State of U.P. &
4 Others1, wherein it has been held that
although
the
statute
provides
for
opportunity of hearing at the stage of
enquiry by the Director but in case there is
recommendation
by
the
Director
to
supersede the Committee of Management,
it is implicit in the provision that the State
Government would accord hearing to the
affected parties before it supersedes the
Committee
of
Management.
This
is
necessary, in view of the fact that the
decision making authority is the State
Government and it is enjoined with duty to
record reasons for supersession of the
Committee of Management. The relevant
observations are extracted below:-
1058 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"10. In my opinion, it would be
incumbent upon the State Government to
issue notice to the aggrieved party to show
cause before passing an order on the
recommendation of the Director. The
decision making authority is the State
Government
and
not
the
Director.
Aggrieved party would have every right to
show cause before the State Government,
contending that the recommendations made
by the Director are either incorrect or per se
perverse. It would, therefore, be incumbent
upon the State Government to pass suitable
order considering the objections. It is
immaterial whether the Committee of
Management has appeared before the
Director pursuant to the show cause notice
under sub-section (3). Principle of natural
justice would have to be read into subsection (4) to uphold the vires of the
section.

..............................................................
.....

18. Notwithstanding, the fact that the
sub-section (4) does not contain any
express provision for the affected party
being given an opportunity of being heard.
Undoubtedly, action under the said sub
section is a function which involves due
application of mind to the facts as well as
to the requirements of law. Therefore, it is
plain
that
before
acting
upon
the
recommendation of the Director, State is
bound to put the aggrieved party to notice.
Civil consequence of superseding the
Committee of Management follows the
decision of the State Government and not
of the Director."

14. Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners has not disputed
before us that the State Government heard
the parties on 24.06.2021 and 28.12.2021.
He also does not dispute that the hearing on
the aforesaid dates was preceded by a
recommendation dated 27.05.2021 by the
Director of Education (Secondary), Uttar
Pradesh for superseding the Committee of
Management in exercise of power under
Section 16-D(4) of the Act.

15. The purpose of affording hearing
is to provide opportunity to the Committee
of Management to place its defence in
context of the recommendation made by
the Director of Education. It would get
opportunity to impress upon the State
Government that on the basis of material
available on record, the law does not
warrant appointment of an Authorized
Controller.

16. Albeit, in the instant case, there
was
a
previous
recommendation
superseding
the
Committee
of
Management, followed by hearing, but
thereafter, as is evident from the impugned
order, the State Government instead of
applying its own independent mind to the
objection submitted by the petitioners and
taking decision in the matter, called for a
fresh report from the Director of Education
(Secondary). He, in turn, called for the
comments from the Joint Director of
Education,
Gorakhpur
and
District
Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar and
submitted a fresh recommendation on
21.03.2022. Based on the same, the State
Government had proceeded to supersede
the Committee of Management. The order
does
not
indicate
that
the
fresh
recommendations and the reports called for,
were made available to the petitioners, as
specifically pleaded in paragraphs 48 and
49 of the writ petition and which fact is not
disputed by counsel for the appellant and
learned Standing Counsel.

17. Additionally, there is no indication
in
the
impugned
order
that
any
3 All. Suryendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1059
consideration was given to the detailed
reply submitted by the petitioners denying
each and every charge levelled against
them. The State Government under law is
empowered to supersede the Committee of
Management by an order 'for reasons to be
recorded'. The State Government was thus
enjoined with the duty to consider the reply
and give reasons for not accepting the
reply, which has not been done.

18. A perusal of the impugned order
reveals that the State Government has not
even alluded to the reply submitted by the
petitioners dated 28.12.2021 and merely,
relying on the recommendation made by
the Director of Education dated 21.03.2022
had
superseded
the
Committee
of
Management. This, in our opinion, has also
resulted in gross violation of the principles
of natural justice.

19. For the reasons given in the order
of learned Single Judge and for additional
reasons recorded by us, we decline to
interfere in the matter.

20. The appeal lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.

21. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 1059
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Writ-A No. 5369 of 2022

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shantanu Khare, Sri Sidharth Khare, Sri
Himanshu Singh, Ashok Khare(Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - U.P. Lok Nirman Vibhag
Avar Abhiyanta (Civil) (Group-C), Service
Rules, 2014-Rule 5(2)-U.P. Lok Nirman
Vibhag
Avar
Abhiyanta
(Mechanical)
(Group-C) Service Rules, 2014-PromotionPetition sought promotion on post of
Junior engineer (Mechanical) in PWD
under 5% quota for promotion available
to
Group
C
employees-Petitioner
possesses
a
diploma
in
mechanical
engineering passed in year 1991-Case of
petitioner has not been considered for
promotion for reason that he is not
covered under Rule 5, which permits
consideration of an employee who has
obtained
diploma
for
promotion
by
department while in service, whereas
petitioner had a diploma prior to date of
his
appointment-Plea
not
tenable-It
cannot be said that petitioner is not
having the requisite qualification or he is
not eligible to be promoted, because he
has not obtained the diploma with prior
permission of the department-Plea of
respondent of no vacancy under 5% quota
also rejected-Direction issued to consider
claim
of
petitioner
for
promotion
afresh.(Para 1 to 29)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. U.O.I. Vs Vijay Kumari (1994) Supp(1) SCC
84
2. U.O.I. Vs Parul Devnath (2009) 14 SCC 173
3. Govind Chandra Tiriya Vs Sibaji Charan Panda
(2020) 3 SCC 803

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Sidharth Khare, learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri