Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 898 (ALL)

Ashok Kumar Mishra v. State of UP

2024-03-22

AJIT KUMAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Vinayak Varma, learned Advocate who has put in appearance by filing Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 5 which is taken on record. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who is a class 4 employee working in the Institution run and managed by 4th respondent, has challenged the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 21.12.2023, however, the copy of same is not on record. 3. A plea is taken in para 13 of the writ petition that despite best efforts the copy of the order of District Inspector of Schools could not be obtained. He has further sought to challenge the order of Manager of Committee of Management dated 30.01.2024, whereby, his claim for promotion as Class III employee has come to be rejected. 4. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Vinayak Varma learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent that this writ petition is not maintainable for two reasons, firstly, the order impugned which is sought to be challenged and which has resulted in crating right in respect of the 5th respondent, has not been filed and second ground taken is that the resolution by which the Committee of Management has rejected the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Clerk in the Institution has also not been challenged. Yet another argument advanced by way of preliminary objection is that the petitioner has already approached the District Inspector of Schools by making appeal / representation against the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 28.01.2024 and so he ought to have exhausted that remedy before approaching this Court. 5. Upon a pointed query being made, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gautam Baghel could not explain as to how the order of District Inspector of Schools could not be obtained and mere statement of fact on the basis of personal knowledge that despite best efforts the order could not obtained, cannot be treated to be a sufficient explanation for not annexing the order impugned which is sought to be challenged. However, Mr. Baghel at this stage submits that since appeal has been preferred before the District Inspector of Schools he may be directed to consider the same in accordance with law. 6. However, Mr. Baghel at this stage submits that since appeal has been preferred before the District Inspector of Schools he may be directed to consider the same in accordance with law. 6. To this above request, learned counsel for the 5th respondent does not have any objection. 7. In view of the above, while I decline to interfere in the order impugned passed by the District Inspector of Schools at this stage, I still provide hereby that the District Inspector of Schools will be looking into and considering the appeal / representation in the matter against the resolution of the Committee of Management by which the claim of the petitioner to be promoted as Class III employee has been rejected. 8. Mr. Baghel has also argued that he should have an opportunity to take the plea before the District Inspector of Schools regarding order passed by him approving the promotion of 5th respondent. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to decide the matter within a period of two months after giving opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. 9. Needless to add the order to be passed by the competent authority, as directed herein above, shall be reasoned and speaking one. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of.