Dismissed

Suyash Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2018WRIA/25882/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition concerning teacher appointments in English medium schools. Noting that the selection exercise is ongoing and vacancies are being adjusted based on merit, the court held the cause of action was premature and no discrimination was found. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of as the cause of action is premature.

Suyash Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25882 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Suyash Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahabir Prasad Sarraf,Ram Kumar Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

In response of the earlier order of this Court dated 7th December, 2018, a letter of District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar addressed to Sri Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent has been placed before this Court in which it has come that so far as remaining teachers are concerned they could not be adjusted for want of vacancies. There are still nine English medium schools which are converted from Hindi medium to the English medium and as and when the question of appointment arise then the teachers may be adjusted as per the merits and option shall be invited of all such teachers including the petitioner.

¶6

Learned counsel for the respondent states that import of the recitals made in the letter is that no fresh interview or written examination will be made and the merit that has already been prepared shall be taken into account by making adjustment in respect of remaining English medium institution and the petitioner has ample opportunity to be selected if he comes on merit in his own category.

¶7

In the opinion of the Court, there is nothing to doubt about the letter addressed to the learned counsel appearing for the District Basic Education Officer and the import as conveyed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Even in the writ petition, I find that there is no averment to the effect that any junior person to the petitioner in the merit has been given appointment. What petitioner claims is that there are three vacancies available against which the petitioner can be adjusted. Up to Serial No.-15, according to him, the teachers have already been accommodated. The cause of action, in the opinion of the Court, is pre-mature at this stage as having gone through the letter which has been part of the instructions placed before this Court and taken on record, the exercise is still underway. So, there is no reason to doubt about the conduct of

¶8

authorities insofar as the claim of the petitioner is concerned and it is hoped as and when the merit list is prepared, the petitioner shall be selected as per his own merit without any discrimination.

¶9

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶10

Order Date :- 18.12.2018 Atmesh

Suyash Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suyash Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Bhrigu Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sarita Agnihotri Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

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

Prem Chand Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Moti Ram and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

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