Facts
The Petitioner, appointed as PGT (Commerce) at Eklavya Model Residential School (EMRS) by the National Education Society for Tribal Students (NESTS), resigned on 19.11.2024 for personal reasons.
Source reference: p. 1-2His resignation was accepted, but he subsequently sought to rejoin. His request was initially rejected based on a circular dated 25.09.2025.
Source reference: p. 2-3In W.P.(C) 18659/2025, the Court directed the Respondents to reconsider his request without relying on the said retroactive circular.
Source reference: p. 2A subsequent speaking order dated 06.04.2026 again erroneously relied on that circular, leading to a contempt petition (CONT.CAS(C) 710/2026) where the Court directed a fresh order.
Source reference: p. 3The Respondents then issued a speaking order on 30.04.2026 rejecting the rejoining request, citing a "lackadaisical attitude" and insufficient medical evidence regarding his parents' ailment, without granting the Petitioner a hearing.
Source reference: p. 5-6Issues
1. Whether the speaking order dated 30.04.2026 complied with the Court's previous directions in W.P.(C) No. 18659/2025 regarding the fair consideration of the Petitioner's rejoining request.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 162. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by making stigmatic observations against the Petitioner without providing an opportunity for a hearing.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 15-16Law Applied
The Court applied the fundamental principles of Natural Justice, specifically the requirement of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) before passing an order that carries stigmatic insinuations or adverse civil consequences.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 15-16The Court also emphasized the doctrine of Substantial Compliance with judicial directions, holding that procedural fairness is implicit in court-ordered reconsiderations.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 16Reasoning
The Court observed that the speaking order dated 30.04.2026 was predicated on factual premises (such as the lack of cogent reasons for resignation and insufficient medical details) for which no clarification was ever sought from the Petitioner.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 14The Court found merit in the Petitioner’s argument that stigmatic observations like "lackadaisical attitude" were made without complying with natural justice.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 13, 15The Court reasoned that because the previous judgment directed a reconsideration of the Petitioner’s request, the adherence to procedural requirements and fair hearing was "implicit" in those directions.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 16Consequently, the unilateral issuance of a speaking order based on unverified assumptions constituted an infraction of the judicial mandate.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 16Holding
The Court held that the speaking order dated 30.04.2026 was not in consonance with the directions in W.P.(C) No. 18659/2025 due to the breach of natural justice.
The Court directed the Additional Commissioner (NESTS) to revisit/review the order after providing the Petitioner an opportunity for a hearing and considering his explanation within four weeks, with liberty granted to the Petitioner to seek legal remedies if aggrieved by the fresh outcome; the contempt petition was disposed of accordingly.
Source reference: p. 6-7, para. 17(i)-(iv), 18Original Court PDF
Aditya GuptavsUnion Of India & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in