The Allahabad High Court has quashed an order passed by the State Project Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, State Project Office, Vidya Bhawan, Nishatganj, Lucknow and directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
A Single Bench of Justice Rajiv Joshi passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Noorul Huda.
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 27.11.2021 passed by the respondent no 2-State Project Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, State Project Office, Vidya Bhawan, Nishatganj, Lucknow, whereby the petitioner was repatriated to his parental department i.e Secondary Education, UP with immediate effect.
The facts giving rise to the writ petition are as under:
The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in Government Inter College, Ballia after due selection and subsequently, on the basis of advertisement issued by respondent-2, he was appointed on the post of District Co-ordinator (Community Mobilization) order dated 02.11.2018 on deputation in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Ballia. In the appointment letter, it is mentioned that the said appointment was on deputation for a minimum period of three years and maximum five years.
Subsequently, pursuant to the said appointment on deputation, the petitioner joined as a District Co-ordinator (Community Mobilization) at Ballia on 20.11.2019 in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Ballia. Subsequently, on the basis of complaint lodged by one Rajesh Kumar (unionist and BJP worker, Sohaon Ballia) as well as on the basis of recommendation dated 17.11.2021 and 18.11.2021 of respondent no 4- Assistant Director of Education (Basic) Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, the order dated 27.11.2021 has been passed, whereby the petitioner was repatriated to his parental department i.e Secondary Education, UP, which is impugned in the writ petition.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of some complaint lodged by the political worker as well as on the basis of recommendation made by the respondent-4, which is not only punitive in nature but stigmatic and even the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without serving any copy of the complaint lodged by the political worker against the petitioner and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no inquiry with regard to allegations made in the complaint lodged by the political worker has been conducted.
Per contra, Counsel for the respondent-2 submitted that the petitioner does not hold any lien on the post of District Co-ordinator (Community Mobilization), who was working on deputation on the said post and has rightly been repatriated to his original department on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in Government Inter College, Ballia.
He further submitted that due to confrontation between teachers association and the petitioner, for smooth functioning of the department work, the impugned order has been passed. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned.
The Court observed that the petitioner was appointed as District Co-ordinator (Community Mobilization) in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Ballia and joined the said post on deputation on 20.11.2019. The impugned order has been passed by respondent-2 repatriating him to parent department i.e on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in Government Inter College, Ballia.
Ordinarily a deputationist has no right to continue on the said post but the impugned action of the respondents by passing the impugned order casts stigma on him as the same was passed on the basis of some complaint lodged by the political worker and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, even the copy of the complaint has not been served to the petitioner and the same order cannot be said to be a simpliciter order but punitive in nature, the Court observed.
In view of the above, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed against the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing and cannot be sustained being stigmatic and is malafide, the Court further said while allowing the writ petition.
“Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.11.2021 passed by the respondent no 2-State Project Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, State Project Office, Vidya Bhawan, Nishatganj, Lucknow, is quashed. The respondents are directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after serving a copy of the complaint lodged by the political worker.
Till such order is passed, the petitioner would be permitted to work on the post of District Co-ordinator (Community Mobilization) in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Ballia and shall be paid arrears of salary, if any, and to pay salary month to month basis regularly,” the Court ordered.