MAIKU LAL SEN Vs. JAY JAY RAM UPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 24th May, 2016 a Division Bench of this Court has referred this matter to the larger Bench as it doubted the correctness of the judgment of a Coordinate Bench passed in Special Appeal No. 476 of 2014 (C/M Shri Maharshi Balmeek Inter College v. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others)1. The Division Bench has formulated the following question for reference:

(2.) The writ petitioner (the first respondent herein), Jay Jay Ram Upadhyay, was initially appointed in 1997 as an Assistant Teacher in I.R. Inter College, Sandila, Hardoi. In 2008 the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board2 issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment on the posts of Principal and Headmaster in different institutions in the State. The writ-petitioner was selected by the Board and was appointed as a Headmaster in Santosh Kumar Inter College, Behandar Kalan, Hardoi, a recognized and aided institution.

(3.) Later, on his application, the writ petitioner was transferred on 16th December, 2011 from Santosh Kumar Inter College, Behandar Kalan, Hardoi to Railway Higher Secondary School, Jail Road, Charbag, Lucknow. The appellant herein, Maiku Lal Sen, has been working in Railway Higher Secondary School as an Assistant Teacher. On the basis of some information gathered by him under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, he made a complaint to the Director of Education (Secondary)3 that the writ petitioner has secured his selection/appointment on the basis of fabricated and forged documents, hence his appointment be cancelled. The Director of Education exercising his power under Section 16-E(10) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 19214 issued a communication dated 10th February, 2016 to the Regional Joint Director of Education, Lucknow and the District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow referring the complaint made by the appellant, Maiku Lal Sen, directing them to prepare a draft show cause notice and parawise comments of the complaint made by Maiku Lal Sen. A copy of the said communication was not addressed to the writ petitioner as it was an intra-departmental communication to collect the necessary facts before issuing a show cause notice to the writ petitioner.