Udai Bhanu Singh vs District Basic Education Officer and Another

R.H. Zaidi, J.—By means of this petition, Petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 7.9.1995, contained in Annexure VI to the writ petition, passed by Respondent No. 1 cancelling the order dated 6.9.1995, whereby the claim of the Petitioner was upheld by the District Basic Education Officer after recording the findings that the papers which were produced by Mr. Samar Jeet Singh were forged and farzi.

Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that Petitioner was elected as manager but subsequently Authorised Controller was appointed to look after the affairs of Baba Mangal Das High School, Akauriya, Shankargarh, Allahabad (hereinafter referred as the institution). Vide order dated 27.3.93, Authorised Controller was withdrawn by Deputy Director of Education and Petitioner was recognised as manager of the institution by Respondent No. 1, for the reasons recorded, by his order dated 6.9.1995. It is stated that at the behest of Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 1 has cancelled the order dated 6.9.1995 on 7.9.1995 behind the back of Petitioner.

Notices meant for Respondent No. 1 have been received by learned standing counsel and notices meant for Respondent No. 2 have been received by Shri Saxena, Advocate and on the request of the parties, I have heard the present petition under Chapter XXII, Rule 2 of the High Court Rules, finally.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record of the case.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, without recording any reasons for passing the same and that Respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to review his earlier order.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that order dated 6.9.1995 was obtained by the Petitioner under suspicious circumstances without disclosing the correct facts, consequently, the same was rightly recalled by the Respondent No. 1 by the order dated 7.9.95.

I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties in the light of the material on the record of the case and relevant law.

It is well-settled in law that the order passed by the statutory functionary has to be read as It is, neither anything can be added in it nor can be substracted from the same.

in Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, , it was ruled as under by the Hon''ble Supreme Court:

The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be Judged by the grounds so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, on a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.

As stated above, no reasons whatsoever have been recorded in the order dated 7.9.1995, therefore, the reasons disclosed in the counter-affidavit to support the order dated 7.9.1995 cannot be accepted.

It is settled law that the order passed without disclosing any reasons is a nullity. No reasons whatsoever have been disclosed in passing the order dated 7.9.1995. The said order is, therefore, null and void. It is also well-established that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has got no power of review. Further, an order passed in violation of principles of natural Justice is non est. The said proposition of law are so well-established that I do not feel it necessary to refer the decision of this Court and Hon''ble Supreme Court in support thereof.

In view of the facts and discussions noted above, the order dated 7.9.1995 passed by the Respondent No. 1 is liable to be quashed.

In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 7.9.1995 is quashed. It will, however, be open to the Respondent No. 1 to proceed in accordance with law and to pass appropriate order, if the same is at all required to be passed in the light of the observations made above.