Allahabad High Court
ARVIND KUMARversusState of UP AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The impugned order is set aside to the extent that a fresh order must be passed after taking note of the pre‑existing report dated 8‑April‑2024.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court examined a writ petition challenging an order dated 16‑April‑2024 that dismissed the petitioner's claim because his name was absent from a 2016 inspection list related to a grant‑in‑aid. The petitioner relied on a Zila Vidyalaya Nirikshan report dated 8‑April‑2024, arguing that the report existed before the impugned order and should have been considered. The respondent contended that the report did not favor the petitioner and that there was no record of the petitioner being on leave without salary. The Court held that the report, being in existence prior to the order, must be taken into account, and therefore set aside the impugned order to the extent necessary for a fresh order to be passed after considering the report. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the authority to pass a fresh order incorporating the report.
Issues considered
- Whether the impugned order can be reviewed on the ground that a relevant report dated 8‑April‑2024 existed before the order was passed.
- Whether the absence of the petitioner's name from the 2016 inspection list is a sufficient basis to dismiss the petition.
- Whether the report should be considered despite the respondent's claim that it does not favor the petitioner.
Subjects
- writ petition
- review of order
- administrative law
- grant in aid
- report consideration
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 7727 of 2024
Arvind Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vinod Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.P.
Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dinesh Kumar,
learned A.C.S.C. for the respondent.
2. The grounds mentioned in the impugned order 16.4.2024 on basis
of record available before Shiksha Nideshak Madhayamik cannot be
interfered that since petitioner's name was not recorded in the list
prepared on inspection in the year 2016 when concerned institution
was granted grant in aid. However, since Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned
Senior Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a report dated
8.4.2024 of Zila Vidhyalaya Nirikshan, Varanasi sent to Shiksha
Nideshak that impugned order can be reviewed though, it is not on
record whether said report was available when impugned order was
passed as it was prior to it.
3. In the counter affidavit said report has not been denied. Though
there is an argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that
said report also not favours the petitioner as no record is available
that at relevant time petitioner was on leave without salary.
4. Be that it may be, since there is a report which was in existence
before the impugned order is passed, therefore, it was also required
to be considered.
5. Accordingly, at this stage without any comment, so far as whether
report dated 8.4.2024 supports the case of petitioner or not, present
WRIA No. 7727 of 2024
2
writ petition is disposed of that a fresh order be passed after taking
note of said report and only to that extent the impugned order is set
aside.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
May 5, 2026
Kumar Manish
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…