Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 194 (ALL)

GORAKH NATH RAI v. STATE OF U P

2009-01-21

RAKESH TIWARI

body2009
RAKESH TIWARI, J. Sri Awadh Narain Rai, learned Counsel for the pe titioner is permitted to implead Sri Dina Nath Singh as respondent No. 4 to the writ petition. 2. Heard Sri Awadh Narain Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri A. K. Malviya, learned Counsel for Dina Nath Singh, the newly impleaded respondent No. 4 in the writ petition. 3. From the impugned order dated 12. 1. 2009 it appears that there is a dispute between the petitioner and newly impleaded respondent No. 4 regard ing the post of Deputy Manager in the institution Sri Jagjeevan Ram Inter College, Asoan, Nagser, District Ghazipur. 4. The contention of Sri A. N. Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after hearing petitioner and newly added respondent No. 4 an order was passed recognizing him as Deputy Manager of the Institution in question and his signatures have consequently been attested. 5. Per contra, Sri A. K. Maliviya, learned Counsel for newly added re spondent No. 4 submits that the impugned order has been passed without giving him an opportunity of hearing and it has been wrongly stated in the order dated 27. 12. 2008 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) that respondent No. 4 was heard. The order dated 27. 12. 2008 is as under:- @ Hindi@ 6. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that no reasons have been given in the order and a conclusion has only been recorded recognizing the petitioner as Deputy Manger of the institution in question. He therefore, moved objections before the authority concerned on 12. 12. 2008, 19. 12. 2008 and 12. 1. 2009 in this re gard for recall of the order dated 27. 12. 2008. The District Inspector of Schools by the impugned order dated 12. 1. 2009 cancelled his earlier order dated 27. 12. 2008 passed ex parte by which he has recognised the petitioner as Deputy Manager of the institution in question. The impugned order dated 12. 1. 2009 is as under:- @hindi@ 7. The District Inspector of Schools by the impugned order has fixed 29. 1. 2009 as the date of hearing for passing appropriate orders after hearing both the parties concerned. 8. The impugned order dated 12. 1. 2009 is as under:- @hindi@ 7. The District Inspector of Schools by the impugned order has fixed 29. 1. 2009 as the date of hearing for passing appropriate orders after hearing both the parties concerned. 8. From the tenor of the impugned order it appears that the contention of respondent No. 4 that he has not been heard when the order dated 27. 12. 2008 was passed appears to have some force. The impugned order dated 12. 1. 2009 is not a final order. The salary of the teachers would now be payable on or before 7th February, 2009. The District Inspector of Schools has already fixed 29. 1. 2009 in the matter, therefore, this Court is not inclined to pass any order at this stage on merit of the case for the reason that the impugned order is not a final order before passing the salary bill of the teachers by the competent au thority post decisional hearing is being given to the petitioner to correct the mistake or the order which may have been obtained on concealment of facts as respondent No. 4 was not heard cannot be said to suffer from any illegality. It is for the District Inspector of Schools to satisfy himself as to who is in control affairs of the institution and finance. Merely because the petitioner has got one bill passed just after 3 days of being recognized as Manager of the institution in question by order dated 27. 12. 2008 would not decide the matter in his favour and the D. I. O. S. is competent to correct any mistake. It is not denied that an opportunity of hearing has not been given to all the parties while passing the orders dated 27. 12. 2008 and 12. 1. 2009 hence 29. 1. 2008 has now been fixed. 9. Furthermore, proceedings under section 16-A (7) of the Act being sum mary in nature is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The aforesaid section deals with the dispute of election between the rival Committee of Management. 10. The impugned order is in the nature of an interlocutory order. 11. It is, however, expected that the D. I. O. S. shall hear and decide fi nally the matter on the date fixed i. e. , 29. 1. 2009. 12. The aforesaid section deals with the dispute of election between the rival Committee of Management. 10. The impugned order is in the nature of an interlocutory order. 11. It is, however, expected that the D. I. O. S. shall hear and decide fi nally the matter on the date fixed i. e. , 29. 1. 2009. 12. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition Dismissed. .