Dismissed

Pooja v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Allahabad HC17 May 2018SPLAD/283/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two special appeals by Pooja challenging a lower court direction to appoint the higher meritorious candidate among her and Archana Shukla, who were identically selected but failed to join. The court held both candidates were in identical positions and dismissed the appeals.

What did the court decide?

Special appeals dismissed; direction by lower court to fill vacant post with higher in merit upheld.

Pooja Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 283 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Pooja Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Kushmondeya Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashwani Kumar Yadav,Sanjay Kumar Singh

¶4

With

¶5

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 454 of 2018

¶6

Appellant :- Pooja Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Kushmondeya Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶8

These two Special Appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 25 April 2018 rendered by a learned Judge of this Court in Writ-A No. 5998 of 2018 filed by Pooja and Writ-A No. 9775 of 2018 filed by Archana Shukla.

¶9

Special Appeal No. 454 of 2018 has been filed by Pooja against the judgment rendered in Writ-A No. 5998 of 2018 filed by Pooja. Special Appeal Defective No. 283 of 2018 has been filed by Pooja against the judgment rendered on 25 April 2018 in Writ Petition No. 9775 of 2018 filed by Archana Shukla. This Special Appeal is accompanied by an application seeking leave to appeal.

¶10

The application deserves to be allowed and leave to appeal is granted.

¶11

It transpires that process for appointment of 16448 Assistant Teachers in Basic Institutions run by the Basic Siksha Parishad was initiated on 16 June 2016. Archana Shukla was selected but she did not join though she was initially working as a Siksha Mitra and later absorbed as an Assistant Teacher but no objection certificate was not issued to her. A fresh round of counselling was thereafter conducted in which Pooja was selected. She also did not join as she was initially working as a Siksha Mitra and later absorbed but no objection certificate was not issued to her.

¶12

It also transpires that the appointment of all Assistant Teachers, who were initially working as Shiskha Mitras was set aside by a Full Bench of this Court which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The claim of the two petitioners for joining as Assistant Teachers pursuant to the process that had been initiated on 16 June 2016 was rejected by the District Education Officer. These two orders were challenged in the writ petitions filed by Pooja and Archana Shukla.

¶13

The learned Judge noticed that both the writ petitioners namely Pooja and Archana Shukla were identically placed as though selected as Assistant Teachers, they did not join because they had already been earlier absorbed as Assistant Teachers but no objection certificates were not issued. The learned Judge also noticed that one un-reserved category post was lying vacant and, therefore, when there was a vacant post, both the writ petitions could be disposed of with a direction to the District Basic Education Officer to fill up the vacant post with the person higher in merit.

¶14

It is submitted by K. Sahi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that though the selection of Archana Shukla was cancelled but the selection of Pooja was not cancelled. In this regard, we have perused the communication dated 27 February 2017 offering appointment to Pooja. It clearly stipulates that in case, she did not join within the stipulated time, her claim would stand automatically cancelled. It is, therefore, clear that the cases of both Pooja and Archana Shukla are identically placed as both of them did not join as Assistant Teachers pursuant to the communications sent to them.

¶15

In such circumstances, when admittedly there exists a vacant post, there is no error in the direction given by the learned Judge that the cases of both Pooja and Archana Shukla shall be examined and whoever is higher in merit shall be given appointment.

¶16

The Special Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 17.5.2018 Sartaj

¶18

(Dilip Gupta,J.)

¶19

(Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

Pooja v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya Shukla Vs the State Bank of India and 3 Ors.

Phool Badan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Neetu Rani Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Ordnance Equipment Factory Prarambhik Sahkari Bank Limited and Another Vs Om Shanker Mishra and 2 Others

Balkesh Dubey and Another Vs the Joint Director Education, Azamgarh Region and 3 Others

Pooja Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others