ARUN KUMAR MISRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS bunch of writ petition has been filed by persons who claim to have been appointed as teaching as well as non teaching staff in various aided and recognized intermediate colleges of District Kushi Nagar in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The provision of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1921), Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1971) and UP. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1982) are applicable to the employees of the institutions involved in these petitions.

(2.) MOST of the writ petitioners seek to challenge the Order dated 27.7.2007 of the State Government holding therein that the earlier Orders dated 24.2.2003 and dated 17.2.2004 by which 46 teaching and non teaching staff (i.e. the petitioners) of various Intermediate Colleges of Kushi Nagar were directed to be adjusted against vacancies in other recognized intermediate colleges, were illegal and inoperative in the eyes of law, in view of the fact that there is no provision for adjustment of teaching and other staff appointed in one institution in an another, more so when the initial appointment in the parent institution itself was found to be illegal/or against non existent vacancy.

(3.) THIS Court may only record that even if the order dated 27.7.2007 has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice yet since it is admitted to the writ petitioners that the orders dated 24.2.2003 and 17.2.2004 which have been cancelled under the said order were perse illegal, this Court will not interfere with the order dated 27.7.2007 on two settled principles of law namely: (a) Setting aside of the order dated 27.7.2007 would result in restoration of illegal orders dated 17.2.2004 and dated 24.2.2003. Time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has held that equitable jurisdiction is not to be exercised for setting aside of an order which would result in restoration of an illegal order. It is settled legal proposition that writ Court should not quash the order if it revives a wrong and illegal order. [Vide Gadde Venkateshwara Rao v. Government ofAndhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1966 SC 828; Maharaja Chintamani Saranath Shahdeov. State of Bihar andothers, (1999) 8 SCC16; Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa andothersv. State of Karnataka and others, (2000) 7 SCC 238; and Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and another, JT 2003 (6) SC 20.] (b) Since one view is possible in the admitted fact of the case namely that the order dated 24.2.2003 and dated 17.2.2004 were perse illegal and contrary to the provisions of the 'Act of 1921' and the 'Act of 1982', no purpose would be served by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if in given set of facts only one view is possible than affording of an opportunity of hearing is only an empty formality. In State of U. P. v. OmPrakash Gupta, AIR 1970 SC 679, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that Courts have to examine whether the non -observance of any statutory provision or principle of natural justice have resulted in deflecting the course of justice. In S.L Kapoorv. Jagmohan and others, AIR 1981 SC 136, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where from admitted or undisputed fact, only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one course is permissible to be adopted, the Court should not enforce the observance of principles of natural justice for the reason that it would amount to issuing a futile writ.