In Writ A No. 7422 of 2018, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, to examine the petitioner's grievance and pass an order within six weeks, referencing observations in cited judgments. The Court expressly disclaimed expressing an opinion on the merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7422 of 2018
Petitioner :- Harishail Shonakar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav, Advocate appearing for third and fourth respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that admittedly the petitioner had participated in the counselling and in paragraph 20 of the writ petition categorical averment has been mentioned that petitioner is fully eligible having 61.30 quality point marks, which is much higher to the cut of merit for the post of Assistant Teacher (Maths/Science) in Senior Basic School. He further made submission that as per the notification dated 30.12.2016, which provides one more opportunity to selected candidates who could not ensure their joining within stipulated period, one more opportunity is liable to be extended to the petitioner in case vacancies are available. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement and order rendered on 24.01.2018 in Writ A No.3031 of 2018 (Surendra Kumar and others vs. State of UP and others) as well as order dated 03.11.2017 passed in Writ A no.27870/2017 (Neeraj Kumar Pandey and another vs. State of U.P. and others) and as such, request has been made that the Authority concerned may be asked to pass appropriate order in the matter.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
as well as Shri A.K. Yadav, Advocate have also given a nod to the said situation.
With the consent of the parties, the writ petition, is accordingly, disposed of asking the Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad (third respondent) to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order keeping in mind the observations made in the aforementioned judgements, as early as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 8.3.2018 A. Pandey
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity for joining a post given his eligibility and available vacancies per prior notifications.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surendra Kumar and others vs. State of UP and othersReferred¶6
Writ A No.3031 of 2018 (Surendra Kumar and others vs. State of UP and others)
Neeraj Kumar Pandey and another vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶6
Writ A no.27870/2017 (Neeraj Kumar Pandey and another vs. State of U.P. and others)
Harishail Shonakar
State Of U.P.
Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
A. Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
