Court No. - 28 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37628 of 2010 Petitioner :- Shyampher Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- N.L. Pandey Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Vikas Singh Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State and Sri Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.10.
In the present case, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that inspite of the direction dated 22.05.2010, copy of which is filed as
Annexure-19 to the writ petition, the said direction has not been complied
with and the District Magistrate, District Azamgarh proceeded to pass the
order impugned and the petitioner has asserted that an opportunity of hearing
has not been provided to him.
Sri Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.10 has submitted that
Assistant Basic Education Officer is also a State Level Officer, and therefore,
no irregularities has been committed.
Issues which are sought to be raised in the present writ petition and as action
has been sought to be taken on the basis of report submitted by Assistant
Basic Eduction Officer, Azamgarh is covered by the issue raised in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 49305 of 2009 (Het Kishan Vs. State of U.P.and
others) which has been referred to the larger Bench to be asnwered, and
therein following orders have been passed which are being extracted below:
“Tenure of the office of Pradhan is coming to an end and fresh elections are
also in contemplation, in such a situation, it is much more necessary that all
such issues are decided at the earliest, which further in its turn would give
valuable guidelines to the Single Judge to deal with the matter effectively.
Office is directed to place the papers of this writ petition as well as papers of
Civil Misc. Writ petition No.45376 and 36881 of 2008, before Hon’ble the
Acting Chief Justice, under Chapter V, Rule 6 of the High Court Rules, within
two weeks from the date of delivery of this order, for constitution of larger
Bench, to answer the issues raised.
Office of the Pradhan derives its existence and status under the Constitution
pursuant to 73rd Amendment, 1992, and Pradhan is entitled to function for the
term for which one has been elected. The right to hold such post is statutory,
and deprivation of the said right has to be in fair manner, be it temporary or
permanent removal and as issues raised in both the writ petitions are of great
general importance, touching the fairness of procedure tobe adhered to,
looking into facts of the case, till the said issues are not answered, the order
under challenge ceasing financial and administrative powers of Pradhan, is
kept in abeyance. The Pradhan shall be free to exercise Administrative power,
but as far as financial powers are concerned, qua the same, it is hereby
directed that financial transaction as is envisaged under Chapter X of the U.P.
Pancbhayat Raj Rules, 1947, shall be done by District Panchayat Raj Officer
concerned, on the recommendations of Gram Panchayat and records will be
maintained strictly as per the Rules. Qua other financial matters also
concurrence be taken from concerned District Panchayat Raj Officer, and in
matter of mid-day-meal from concerned District Basic Education Officer.
Pendency of this reference will not prevent the authorities to undertake and
conclude formal enquiry as is envisaged under Rules 6, 7, 8, and 9 of Enquiry
Rules, 1997, and to take final decision in the matter.
Registry shall proceed accordingly.”
Consequently, record of present writ petition be also tagged with the record of
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49305 of 2009 (Het Kishan Vs. State of U.P.
and others) and similar interim order stands passed in present writ petition
also.
Order Date :- 1.7.2010
S.Ali