Disposed

Meenakshi Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2018WRIA/6038/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a unilateral transfer of the sixth respondent to her institution, asserting her seniority for promotion to Clerk post. The court rejected immediate promotion due to lack of evidence on eligibility and directed a final inquiry into her claim.

What did the court decide?

The authorities were directed to take a final decision on the petitioner's claim for promotion; if eligible, she may be promoted and the sixth respondent accommodated elsewhere.

Meenakshi Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6038 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Meenakshi Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Dwivedi,Dinesh Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri B.B. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent, Shri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for fourth, fifth and sixth respondents.

¶6

Meenakshi Singh is before this Court assailing the validity of order dated 16.01.2018 passed by Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur whereby he has transferred the sixth respondent to the institution in question. Further prayer has been made to command the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur to promote petitioner to the post of Clerk in the institution namely Kshetriya Inter College, Fatehpur Rosnai, Kanpur Dehat.

¶7

In the district of Kanpur, there is an institution known as Kshetriya Inter College, Fatehpur Rosnai, Kanpur Dehat (hereinafter referred to as the "Institution"), which is recognized under the provision of U.P. Education Act, 1921 (in brevity "Act 1921") and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. The Institution in question is in grantin-aid list of the State Government and the provisions of U.P. Act no.24 of 1971 are fully applicable to the said institution

¶8

In the aforesaid Institution, there is one sanctioned post of Clerk. The permanent Clerk in the Institution namely Rajendra Kumar Mishra had retired on 30.06.2017 and as such, a substantive vacancy has occurred in the Institution.

¶9

It appears that father of petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in the Institution and died in service on 21.12.1998 and petitioner was given an appointment on 27.02.1999 as Class IV employee in the Institution against the supernumerary post. It is

¶10

claimed that the said post of Clerk was liable to be filled up by way of promotion and petitioner being senior most eligible and qualified Class IV employee of the Institution and having more than five years experience to her credit is liable to be promoted on the said post of Clerk as envisaged under Chapter III, Regulation 2 of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It has also been claimed that Manager/Principal of the Institution also took assistance from the petitioner in discharging clerical work of the institution. It has also been informed to the Court that the petitioner had moved an application on 07.07.2017 before the Management of the Institution for promotion on the post of Clerk under 50% promotional quota and had also made a representation to the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region Kanpur on 03.10.2017 and the same are still pending consideration.

¶11

It appears that by an order dated 16.01.2018 passed by Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur the sixth respondent has been given unilateral transfer to the Institution in question on the post of Assistant Clerk and being aggrieved with the same, present writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer.

¶12

In this backdrop, the precise objection has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said transfer order is in the teeth of judgement of Full Bench of this Court Jai Bhagwan Singh vs. District Inspector of Schools, Gautambudh Nagar and others 2006 (3) UPLBEC 2391 whereby reference has been answered to the effect that against a single post of Class III available in an Intermediate College governed by the Act 1921, can only be filled up by way of promotion. The same has also been followed by Division Bench of this Court in Munna Lal vs. Devendra Bahadur Chandel and others 2007 (3) UPLBEC 2728 and as such, request has been made that the impugned transfer is in teeth of the aforesaid judgement and as such, this Court should come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.

¶13

On the other hand, Shri B.B. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as Shri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the sixth respondent submit that on the basis of recommendation of Regional Level Committee dated 12.01.2018, the

¶14

order impugned has been passed by the Authority concerned under the administrative adjustment and as such, no interference is required in the same.

¶15

The mode of promotion on the post of Clerk in Regulation is governed under Regulation 2 Chapter III of Act 1921 and under the same it is provided that the solitary post of Class-III (Clerk) is to be filled up from amongst eligible candidates of Class IV category employees subject to their seniority or otherwise post of an appropriate service record. The said situation has also been affirmed by this Court in the case of Jai Bhagwan Singh (supra) and Munna Lal (supra) .

¶16

The petitioner claims to be senior most Class IV employee in the Institution but perusal of the record at no point of time indicate/suggest that on the date of occurrence of vacancy i.e. 30.06.2017, the petitioner had minimum required eligibility. Record in question does also not indicate/suggest that the claim of the petitioner has ever been considered and decided by the Authorities and straightway, the Joint Director of Education, Secondary, Kanpur Region, Kanpur has passed the order impugned transferring one Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Assistant Clerk to the institution in question

¶17

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim set up by the petitioner is liable to be addressed by the respondents and as such, this Court proceeds to direct that the respondents shall take a final decision on the claim set up by the petitioner and in case it is found that the petitioner fulfills all the minimum required conditions for the post in question, her case may be considered for promotion and suitably the sixth respondent may also be accommodated to the another institution.

¶18

With these, the Writ Petition is disposed of .

¶19

Order Date :- 21.3.2018 A. Pandey

Meenakshi Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenakshi Singh 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

Renu Gupta Vs State of Up and 3 Others

C/M Sant Kabir Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jay Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Ramjee Singh and 10 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Vaibhav Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Ministry Basic Education Secretariat Lucknow and 9 Others

C/M Janta Kanya Pathshala Junior High School Dist. Hapur through Its Manager Ishwar Chand Bansal Vs State of U.P. through Its Secretary Basic Education Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Another