Prayagraj, Aug 25 The Allahabad High Court has remarked that disturbing circumstances prevail in Uttar Pradesh's Basic Education Department, and allegations of corruption and illegal gratification are frequently brought to its notice.
A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed while considering an application seeking withdrawal of a writ petition that had remained pending before the court for nearly six years.
The writ petition filed by one Uphar Kushwaha challenged a 2018 order passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA), Prayagraj. The petitioner sought protection against interference with his duties as an assistant teacher at a junior basic school as well as payment of his regular salary.
However, on August 20, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the matter submitting that his grievance had since been settled. The court, however, declined to accept the claim at face value.
The court observed that no order or document had been placed on record showing how the grievance had been settled or whether the impugned (under challenge) order had been withdrawn.
The court noted that the matter had been taken up on several occasions beginning July 19, 2019 and an interim order had been passed on November 18, 2019 staying the operation of the impugned order.
The petition had thereafter remained pending and after nearly six years, the petitioner sought withdrawal merely on the ground that his grievance had been settled.
The court observed, "What is conspicuously absent, however, is any disclosure as to in what manner the alleged grievance has been settled, the bald assertion that the grievance has been settled cannot be accepted at its face value particularly when the petition has remained pending for years."
Against this backdrop, the court made a significant observation concerning the Basic Education Department. It said, "This court cannot lose sight of the disturbing circumstances prevailing in the Basic Education Department, where allegations of corruption and illegal gratification are frequently brought to its notice."
The court stressed that where an order challenged before it is sought to be rendered infructuous during the pendency of proceedings, the circumstances in which the order was allegedly withdrawn or the grievance settled must be placed on record and duly explained by the competent authority.
The court stressed that the process of the court cannot be permitted to be "frustrated" by a subsequent, unexplained administrative action. The court, therefore, directed the district basic education officer, Prayagraj, to file a personal affidavit explaining how and in what manner the petitioner's grievance had allegedly been settled.
The BSA has also been directed to clarify whether the impugned order was actually withdrawn, recalled, modified or otherwise annulled. If so, the date and authority by which such action was taken, a copy of the order or document pursuant to which the petitioner claims that his grievance was settled and the circumstances in which the subsequent decision, if any, was taken and the officer responsible for it.
The court, in its order dated August 20, directed that this case be listed on September 10 for the next hearing.
