Disposed

Manish Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2018WRIA/15557/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged the petitioner's appointment based on a perceived non-compliance with teacher recruitment rules. The Court refused to pass a final merit decision, directing the relevant authority to examine the legality and salary entitlement within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 3rd respondent to examine the correctness and legality of the petitioner's appointment and entitlement to salary within three months.

Manish Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15557 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Manish Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi,Arvind Singh

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Awdhesh Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Sri K. Shahi, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

The grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner while getting appointment as Assistant Teacher in the institution run by the 5th respondent was having B.P.Ed. qualification. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that his case has not been examined only because of the said qualification of being not one of the qualifications fixed for the eligibility for the purposes of appointment as Assistant Teacher in a Junior High School under the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978. Counter affidavit has been filed reiterating the same stand as it appears to have been taken in not passing any order in relation to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the matter has now stood resolved in view of the decisions taken by this Court in the case of Aman Kishore Singh v. State of U.P. in Special Appeal No. 1247 of 2013 , wherein B.P.Ed. has been held also a qualification within the eligibility criterion fixed for the appointment of Assistant Teacher.

¶9

Be that as it may, in the opinion of the Court, the matter is factual in nature with regard to the appointment and selection and subsequent approval, if any and can be examined at the end of the 3rd respondent in the first instance. 3rd respondent, therefore, is directed to examine the matter strictly in accordance with law with regard to the correctness and legality in the appointment of the petitioner and his entitlement to the salary, if any. The decision shall be taken by the 3rd respondent with a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶10

It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner at this stage.

¶11

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations/ directions.

¶12

Order Date :- 26.11.2018 Atmesh

Manish Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anurag Harsh and 17 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Suman Lata Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sri Ranu Rathor and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Manish Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suresh Pal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 25 Others