Dismissed

Anju Shukla v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2018WRIA/7591/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by widow of Assistant Teacher seeking compassionate appointment. Court disposed of petition without expressing opinion on merits, directing Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Lucknow to look into grievance and redress it sympathetically within three months.

What did the court decide?

None. Petitioner directed to approach Chairman, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Lucknow within three months to redress grievance.

Anju Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7591 of 2018 Petitioner :- Anju Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vimal Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi,Vikram Bahadur Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vimal Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1, 2 and 4; Shri P.D. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.3 and 5 as well as Shri Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.6.

¶5

Anju Shukla wife of late Rajesh Kumr Shukla is before this Court assailing the impugned order dated 1.12.2017 passed by the Secretary, Basic Education Board, U.P. Allahabad; the order dated 30.12.2017 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur as well as the order dated 22.7.213 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi and for direction to the respondents to appoint her on a suitable post on compassionate ground as per her educational qualification.

¶6

Record in question reflects that the husband of the petitioner namely Rajesh Kumar Shukla was working an Assistant Teacher in Primary School Rasoolpur Badley, Block Muratganj, District Kaushambi. Unfortunately, he died in a road accident on 30.3.2011, leaving behind the petitioner as his widow and one son aged 7 years. The petitioner being qualified B.A. & B.Ed. applied for the post of Assistant Teacher on 23.6.2011. On 4.5.2012 the District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi sent a letter to the petitioner stating that she has not passed TET examination, therefore, she is not eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher in the Primary School run and managed by the U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad and there is no vacancy on the post of Clerk in the district. Thereafter, the District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi issued an appointment letter on 22.7.2013 in favour of the petitioner on Class-IV post but she did not submit her joining in pursuance of the aforesaid appointment letter. Meanwhile, the petitioner acquired and qualified U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test (Upper Primary Level) Examination-2013. Thereafter, she had submitted an application before the District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi on 11.11.2013 for her appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground. When no

¶7

decision was taken, she preferred Writ A No.14624 of 2014 (Smt. Anju Shukla vs. State of UP and 2 others). The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 10.3.2014 with following observations:-

¶8

"I have heard Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 & 3. No useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending.

¶9

This writ petition is disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties with a direction to the respondent no.2, District Basic Education Officer, District Kaushambi that if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation alongwith the certified copy of this order within 10 days from today before the respondent no.2, the said respondent shall consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law within a further period of one month.

¶10

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case."

¶11

In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 10.3.2014, the petitioner submitted an application before the District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi on 15.3.2014. By the order dated 27.5.2014 the District Basic Education Officer rejected the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved with the order dated 27.5.2014, the petitioner again approached this Court by preferring Writ A No. 42895 of 2014 stating that she possesses the essential qualifications for appointment as Assistant Teacher or in the alternative on Class-III post, but she has been wrongly offered Class-IV post in Primary School Chaphua, Block Muratganj, District Kaushambi, whereas there are several vacancies in districts Allahabad, Fatehpur and Pratapgarh. The said writ petition was disposed of on 20.8.2014 with following directions:-

¶12

"Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is provided that the petitioner may join on Class-IV post, but it will not cause any prejudice to her claim on the post of Assistant Teacher. She is also at liberty to move a representation in the meantime before the Additional Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad to make her posting at either Allahabad or Fatehpur or Pratapgarh in place of her present place of posting and for her appointment on Class-III post. In the event any such representation is filed within ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the respondent no. 4 shall consider her representation and pass the order expeditiously preferably within three weeks from the date of communication of this order."

¶13

Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the application dated 9.9.2014 before the Additional Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad as well as Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic), U.P. Allahabad for her appointment on the post of

¶14

Assistant Teacher or on the post of Clerk in District Kaushambi, Allahabad, Pratapgarh, Fatehpur. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) on 4.10.2014 on the ground that no post is vacant in the Districts Fatehpur, Allahabad, Pratapgarh and Kaushambi and hence, her request for the appointment on Class III post was rejected. Again the petitioner approached this Court by preferring Writ A No.38055 of 2017 (Anju Shukla vs. State of UP and 7 others), which was disposed of on 30.8.2017 with following observations:-

¶15

"Having due regard to the fact that the District Basic Education Officer in his communication dated 07.07.2017 has submitted the information which indicates that four posts of Assistant Clerk are lying vacant, a direction is issued to the Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the communication of the District Basic Education Officer dated 07.07.2017 and pass fresh order within three weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶16

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

The earlier order regarding rejection of the representation of the petitioner shall abide by the fresh order passed by Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic)."

¶18

After receiving the order dated 30.8.2017, the Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad issued notice to the petitioner as well as District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur and the date was fixed for hearing on 18.9.2017. The petitioner appeared on the said date but the District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur did not appear. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Contempt Application (Civil) No.4896 of 2017 (Smt. Anju Shukla vs. Sri Ramesh Kumar Tiwari and others), which was disposed of on 2.11.2017 with following observations:-

¶19

"Operative portion of the order of writ court dated 30.8.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.38055 of 2017, non compliance of which is alleged, reads as under:-

¶20

¶21

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. The earlier order regarding rejection of the representation of the petitioner shall abide by the fresh order passed by Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic)."

¶22

Record reveals that this order has been served upon the opposite parties on 5.9.2017 but even thereafter no decision has been taken.

¶23

In case the allegations made in this petition are correct then prima facie a case of disobedience of the order of writ court is made out. However, in the facts and circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to grant one further opportunity to the opposite parties to ensure compliance of the order of writ court.

¶24

Office is directed to send a copy of this petition to the opposite parties concerned alongwith a copy of this order. It shall keep a record of the same. Process fee for the purpose be supplied by the applicant within a week.

¶25

This contempt petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction upon the opposite parties to ensure compliance of the order of writ court, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Liberty, however, is reserved to the applicant to approach this Court again in case order of the writ court is not complied with."

¶26

In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 2.11.2017, the Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad sent a letter to the District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur on 12.10.2017 to issue offer of appointment to the petitioner for appointment as Junior Clerk in compliance of the order of this Court dated 30.8.2017. When nothing had happened, the petitioner again filed the Contempt Application (Civil) No.5860 of 2017 (Smt. Anju Shukla vs. Sri Ramesh Tiwari and others) in which notices were issued to the opposite party no.2 i.e. District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur. Thereafter, the said contempt application was disposed of on 24.1.2018 with following observation:-

¶27

"In a pending writ petition the Court had on 20.8.2014 passed interim directions permitting the applicant to join on a class IV post on compassionate grounds and to represent her case for posting against a class III post on compassionate grounds in districts Allahabad, Fatehpur or Pratapgarh. This interim direction was issued in light of the submission advanced on behalf of the applicant that she did not want to join at Kushambi. Pursuant to the interim directions so issued the matter rested with the respondents till another writ petition was filed which came to be disposed of on 30.8.2017 directing the respondents therein to reconsider the matter afresh and in light of the communication of the District Basic Education Officer dated 7.7.2017. Pursuant to the matter being reviewed and the requisite exercise being undertaken the respondents have passed an order taking the position that since the husband of the applicant had died while serving at Kaushambi, she cannot be offered compassionate appointment in any neighboring district.

¶28

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that this order is in violation of the interim directions issued by the Court. The Court finds itself unable to sustain the submission for the reason that there was no direction to appoint the applicant in a neighbouring district. The only

¶29

direction framed was for the consideration of her claim and prayer for posting in a neighbouring district. The other contentions which are urged with reference to the order passed by the respondents touch upon the merits of the claim of the applicant and cannot possibly form subject matter of consideration in these proceedings. On the state of the record as it exists today, the Court finds no ground to continue these proceedings in contempt.

¶30

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of."

¶31

In this backdrop, Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court vide its order dated 10.3.2014 disposed of the earlier Writ A No.14624 of 2014 asking the Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Allahabad to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 10.3.2014 the Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) Allahabad had rejected the claim of the petitioner on 4.10.2014 on the ground that Class-III posts in District Allahabad, Fatehpur, Pratapgarh and Kaushambi are not vacant. Again the petitioner filed Writ A No.38055 of 2017, which was disposed of on 30.8.2017 asking the Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic) to re-consider the matter afresh in the light of letter of the District Basic Education Officer dated 7.7.2017. Instead of complying the order of this Court dated 30.8.2017, the Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad and the District Basic Education Officer, Fatehpur passed the impugned orders. The petitioner passed B.A., B.Ed, TET and CCC examinations and she is fully qualified for appointment on Class-III post/Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground but the respondents are not offering the appointment letter for Class-III post or the post of Assistant Teacher. On similar circumstances, the District Basic Education Officer, Lucknow offered the appointment to the widow of the Assistant Teacher on 16.10.2017. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the Government order dated 25.9.1991, which provides for compassionate appointment to the dependent of teaching and non-teaching staff working in aided institutions.

¶32

On the other hand, Shri P.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the order impugned has been passed strictly in accordance with law and under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, no reprieve can be extended to the petitioner.

¶33

No useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending.

¶34

In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits

¶35

of the issue and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Chairman, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Lucknow to look into the grievance of the petitioner and redress the same, taking sympathetically consideration as the petitioner is litigating in the matter since long, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. The impugned orders shall abide by the fresh order to be passed by the Chairman, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Lucknow.

¶36

Order Date :- 12.3.2018 RKP

Anju Shukla v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju Shukla 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

Km. Poonam Kumari Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Committee of Managment Shri Gandhi Intermediate College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amir Ahmad Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

The Kisan Education Society and Another Vs State of U.P. and 04 others

Ramashray Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Geeta Mahor Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others