Dismissed

Pradeep Kuamr Yadav and 27 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2018WRIA/13046/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of orders relieving Assistant Teachers from deputation as Co-coordinators. The Court held that as the return to original posts caused no prejudice and the petitioners were not debarred from future employment, there was no valid ground to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissing with costs to petitioners.

Pradeep Kuamr Yadav and 27 Others Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13046 of 2018 Petitioner :- Pradeep Kuamr Yadav And 27 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ray Sahab Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandrakesh Rai,Jai Singh Parihar

¶2

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.P. Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri C.K. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 9.5.2018, passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Jhansi and the advertisement dated 19.5.2018, issued by the same authority.

¶5

Undisputedly, the petitioners are Assistant Teachers. By order dated 11.3.2015, passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Jhansi, they were sent on deputation for three years for discharging duty as Assistant Co-coordinator. It further appears that by order dated 9.3.2018 their renewal was declined and they were directed to be relieved. The petitioners filed a Writ - A No.9313 of 2018 (Pradeep Kumar Yadav and 27 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others) which was disposed of by order dated 3.4.2018, providing that So long as the issue of satisfactory working of the petitioners is not examined, the authorities would not proceed to conduct fresh recruitment only because of the fact that the period of three years has expired.

¶6

It appears that the engagement of Co-coordinators under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan is made under the Government Order dated 2.2.2011, for a period of three years with a provision for renewal for another three years.

¶7

Sri C.K. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.6. has produced a copy of minutes of the meeting of the District Level Selection Committee dated 19.3.2018 alongwith which several correspondence of the respondent no.6 and Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Baragaon Jhansi, including the work report of the petitioners. As per instructions bearing signature of Chairman District Education and Training Institute, Barwasagar, Jhansi and four members, the work of co-coordinators (petitioners) is not satisfactory. Several instances have also been given in the instructions. The copy of the aforesaid minutes of the meeting of the District Level Selection Committee is kept on record.

¶8

By the impugned order, the petitioners have been relieved and they have been directed to continue on their original post and the place of posting as Assistant Teachers. Thus, the impugned order dated 19.5.2018 does not cause any prejudice to the petitioners. This Court specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioners that what prejudice would be caused to the petitioners by the impugned order? Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any thing adverse which may be said to prejudice the rights of the petitioners. The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers and they shall continue as Assistant Teachers.

¶9

Under the circumstances and particularly in the absence of any prejudice caused by the impugned order dated 19.5.2018, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 9.5.2018 and the advertisement dated 19.5.2018.

¶10

Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶11

Order Date :- 4.7.2018/vkg

Pradeep Kuamr Yadav and 27 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kuamr Yadav and 27 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

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

C/M Sri Devkali Nath Sanskrit Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rohit Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gulveeer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhupendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Janta Adarsh Madhyamik Vidyalaya Nawada and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sanjoo Kumari Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others