# Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kanpur Nagar v. Smt. Dhoopa Devi and another

- **Citation:** (2009) 2 ILRA 716
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-08-04
- **Bench:** C.K. Prasad, C.J. A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/zila-basic-shiksha-adhikari-kanpur-nagar-v-smt-dhoopa-devi-and-another-41439
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri Shri Kant Shukla
Sri Praveen Kumar

Uttar
Pradesh
Junior
High
School
(Recognised Basic Schools) Junior High
School (Recruitment and condition of
Service of Ministrial Staff and Group-D
Employees)
Rules
1984-Rule
13Cancellation of appointment without
show cause notice without opportunity
of hearing-appointment on the post of
Maharajin/Sevika-without advertising in
News
papers
without
following
the
provision contained in Rule 14 & 15illegal-grant of approval of no use if
appointment
itself
illegal-cancellation
held
proper-order
passed
by
Single
Judge-set-a-side.

Held: Para 6

There is nothing on record to show that
the writ petitioner - respondent No.1
was appointed in accordance with the
said rules. Neither the advertisement nor
the averments regarding constitution of
the Selection Committee has at all been
pleaded.
In
absence
thereof
the
appointment of Respondent No.1 was
absolutely illegal and once it is held so,
nothing prevented the Basic Education
Officer to rescind the same after it had
come to his notice. The contention that
the order of cancellation was in violation
of principles of natural justice does not
hold
water
as
even
otherwise
no
material has been brought forth before
us to demonstrate that the appointment
was valid and in accordance with the
rules applicable.

## Text

716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.08.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE C.K. PRASAD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Special Appeal (Defective) No.[864] of
2009

Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kanpur
Nagar

...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Dhoopa Devi & anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri K. Shahi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Shri Kant Shukla
Sri Praveen Kumar

Uttar
Pradesh
Junior
High
School
(Recognised Basic Schools) Junior High
School (Recruitment and condition of
Service of Ministrial Staff and Group-D
Employees)
Rules
1984-Rule
13Cancellation of appointment without
show cause notice without opportunity
of hearing-appointment on the post of
Maharajin/Sevika-without advertising in
News
papers
without
following
the
provision contained in Rule 14 & 15illegal-grant of approval of no use if
appointment
itself
illegal-cancellation
held
proper-order
passed
by
Single
Judge-set-a-side.

Held: Para 6

There is nothing on record to show that
the writ petitioner - respondent No.1
was appointed in accordance with the
said rules. Neither the advertisement nor
the averments regarding constitution of
the Selection Committee has at all been
pleaded.
In
absence
thereof
the
appointment of Respondent No.1 was
absolutely illegal and once it is held so,
nothing prevented the Basic Education
Officer to rescind the same after it had
come to his notice. The contention that
the order of cancellation was in violation
of principles of natural justice does not
hold
water
as
even
otherwise
no
material has been brought forth before
us to demonstrate that the appointment
was valid and in accordance with the
rules applicable.

(Delivered by Hon'ble C.K. Prasad, C.J.)

1. Respondent No.1 - appellant,
aggrieved by the order dated 12.05.2009
passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No.30 of 1996, has
preferred this Appeal under Rule 5
Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court
Rules, 1952.

2. Short facts giving rise to the
present Appeal are that writ petitioner -
respondent
No.1
was
engaged
as
Maharajin/Sevika in Bal Niketan Balika
Junior High School, Jajmau Colony,
Kanpur Nagar. The appointment was
made in pursuance of a resolution of the
Committee of Management of the said
institution. While appointing respondent
No.1, it was resolved to seek approval of
the Basic Education Officer, Kanpur
Nagar. The approval was granted by the
Basic Education Officer in May, 1994.
Thereafter,
by
order
dated
22nd
November, 1995, the Basic Education
Officer cancelled the appointment inter
alia on the ground that earlier approval
for
appointment
was
taken
on
misrepresentation
of
facts
and
her
appointment was absolutely illegal.

3. Respondent No.1 challenged the
aforesaid order in the writ petition which
has given rise to the present appeal. The
learned Single Judge allowed the writ
2 All] Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kanpur Nagar V. Smt. Dhoopa Devi and another

717
petition and while doing so, the learned
Single Judge observed as follows :

"A perusal of the interim order
reveals that no opportunity of hearing
was afforded before issuing the order of
cancellation. She was appointed against a
clear, permanent vacancy and after
obtaining the approval of then Basic
Shiksha Adhikari in the year 1994. The
approval was granted by the Basic
Shiksha Adhikari and a government
servant have continued for a sufficiently
long period, her appointment could not be
suddenly cancelled without affording any
opportunity of hearing in violation of the
principles of natural justice. Accordingly,
the order appears to be ex-facie punitive
and it has resulted in removal and
dismissal of the petitioner and recovering
salary from petty employee of a Junior
High School and that too after rendering
services in the college appears to be too
harsh and is not sustainable. Accordingly,
the order dated 22.11.1995 is quashed.
The petitioner is already in service.
Consequences shall follow. The writ
petition is allowed.

4. Mr. K. Shahi appears on behalf of
the
appellant.
Respondent
No.1
is
represented by Mr. Shri Kant Shukla.

5. It is common ground that the
matter of appointment on the post in
question is governed by the Uttar Pradesh
Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High
School) (Recruitment and Condition of
Service of Ministerial Staff and Group 'D'
Employees) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter
referred to as the Rules). Rule 13 of the
said Rules inter alia provides for
advertisement of the vacancy at least in
one newspaper having wide circulation in
the locality. Rule 14 thereof further
provides for constitution of a Selection
Committee and Rule 15 thereof provides
procedure for Selection.

6. There is nothing on record to
show that the writ petitioner - respondent
No.1 was appointed in accordance with
the said rules. Neither the advertisement
nor the averments regarding constitution
of the Selection Committee has at all been
pleaded.
In
absence
thereof
the
appointment of Respondent No.1 was
absolutely illegal and once it is held so,
nothing prevented the Basic Education
Officer to rescind the same after it had
come to his notice. The contention that
the order of cancellation was in violation
of principles of natural justice does not
hold water as even otherwise no material
has been brought forth before us to
demonstrate that the appointment was
valid and in accordance with the rules
applicable.

7. We are of the opinion that the
learned Single Judge without taking into
account the aforesaid aspect of the matter
ought not to have interfered with the order
rescinding the appointment of respondent
no.1.

8. In the result, the Appeal is
allowed. Impugned order of the learned
Single Judge is set aside and the writ
petition stands dismissed. No order as to
cost.
---------
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.08.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH SHARMA, J.

First Appeal No. 565 of 1989
Alongwith
First Appeal No. 554 of 2001

U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad

...Appellant
Versus
Din Mohammad & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shri Kant

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri N.C. Rajvanshi
Sri M.K. Rajvanshi

U.P.
Awas
Avam
Vikas
Parishad
Adhiniyam-Section 32 (1)-Enhancement
of
compensation-land
acquired
on
21.10.59-reference
Court
inhanced
compensation excluding plot No.135poor land owner could not challenging
due to dispute of third party regarding
award-26.02.85
reference
court
enhanced compensation as the rate of
Rs.10/- per sqr. Yard-while other land
inferior quality land amount enhanced at
the rate of Rs.25/-held- order passed by
reference court perfectly justified can
not be interfered.

Held: Para 17

In the present case, the claimants, land
owners, are poor farmers of the Meerut
District, not Builders or Colonisers or
Developers. It is noteworthy that for the
land acquired in the same vicinity,
reference
had
been
allowed
and
compensation was awarded at the rate
of Rs.10/= per sq. yard. Even inferior
quality of land was rated at a higher
price. This Court has also scrutinised the
impugned judgment in the light of a
recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in 2009 (2) AWC 1617
(SC), Revenue Divisional Officer-cumL.A.O. Vs. Shaik Azam Saheb etc. and
found that the impugned judgment order
of the Reference court is a legally sound,
detailed and reasoned judgment, which
does not require any interference.
Case law discussed:
1996 AWC 1238,
1995 (2) SCC 689.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma, J.)

1. Since both these First Appeals
have been preferred against the same land
acquisition
proceedings
claiming
enhanced compensation and are interknitted, therefore, these First Appeals are
being decided by this one and common
judgment.

2. Heard Sri Shri Kant, learned
counsel for the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad and Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned
Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri M.K.
Rajvanshi,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents in First Appeal No. 565 of
1989 and for the Appellants in First
Appeal No. 554 of 2001 and perused the
materials on record.

3. The present First Appeals, under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
have been preferred by the U.P. Awas
Evam
Vikas
Parishad
against
the
respondents, land owners, farmers, and by
the land owners against the U.P. Avas
Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred
as the Parishad) for enhancement of their
compensation. These First Appeals have
been filed assailing the judgment and
decree dated 6th May, 1989, passed by the
District Judge, Meerut, rendered while
answering Land Acquisition Reference
No. 182 of 1988, by which the Reference