DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER versus DHANANJAI KUMAR SHUKLA AND ANR.

DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER versus DHANANJAI KUMAR SHUKLA AND ANR.

Appointment of respondent No. 1 as Headmaster, being son of the Manager (who went on temporary leave to defeat disqualification), was contrary to Rule 6 and is a nullity; High Court cannot legalize such appointment merely because counter affidavit was not filed; whether in law or equity, it is wholly improper for respondent No. 1 to continue as Headmaster.

Parties
Appellant: District Basic Education Officer; Respondent: Dhananjai Kumar Shukla; Respondent: Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgments set aside; writ petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Appointment of Headmaster, Disqualification, Fraud on Administration, Order 8 Rule 5 CPC, Jurisdiction Under Article 226
Service Law Appointment of Headmaster Disqualification Fraud on Administration Order 8 Rule 5 CPC Jurisdiction Under Article 226

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

District Basic Education Officer

Appellant

Dhananjai Kumar Shukla

Respondent

Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appointment of Headmaster who is son of Manager is valid under Rule 6 of 1978 Rules
  2. 2 Effect of Manager temporarily going on leave to defeat statutory disqualification
  3. 3 Effect of non-filing of counter affidavit in writ petition under Order 8 Rule 5 CPC

Ratio Decidendi

Appointment of respondent No. 1 as Headmaster, being son of the Manager (who went on temporary leave to defeat disqualification), was contrary to Rule 6 and is a nullity; High Court cannot legalize such appointment merely because counter affidavit was not filed; whether in law or equity, it is wholly improper for respondent No. 1 to continue as Headmaster.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgments set aside; writ petition dismissed

Orders

  • Impugned judgments of High Court are set aside.
  • Writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 stands dismissed.