Allowed

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

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2018WRIA/8202/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an order refusing approval for teacher recruitment in an aided school due to a perceived ban, relying on a specific Government Order relaxing the ban on recruitment. The matter was remitted to the District Basic Education Officer for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 06.03.2018 set aside; matter remitted to District Basic Education Officer, Deoria for fresh consideration within two months.

C/M Sant Kabir Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya and… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8202 of 2018 Petitioner :- C/M Sant Kabir Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Kedar Nath Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta

¶2

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶3

The petitioner-Committee of Management of a recognized and aided junior High School, is aggrieved by order of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 06.03.2018, whereby he has declined to accord approval for appointment in the institution on the ground that State Govt. has put a ban for recruitment of teachers and other employees.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to two Govt. Orders dated 4.11.2015 and 15.9. 2014, whereby the State Govt. has relaxed the ban and in the Govt. Order dated 15.9.2014 a specific direction has been issued to fill up vacant 800 posts of Headmaster, 1444 posts of assistant teachers and 525 posts of non teaching staff. Copy of the said Govt. Order is on record as annexure no. 2 to the writ petition.

¶5

Learned counsel for petitioner has further placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Committee of Management, Nehru Kissan Vidyalaya Junior High School Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 58220 of 2016, decided on 31.1.2017. The said matter was also in respect of a recognized and aided junior high school and the issue which fell for consideration in the said case, is identical and similar which arises in the present case.

¶6

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for the State respondents and Shri Shyam Krishna Gupta, Advocate appearing second respondent. As there is no factual dispute involved, no useful purpose would be served by calling response from the respondents and keep the matter pending. Hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself in terms of the Rules of the Court.

¶7

In view of the above, the order impugned dated 06.03.2018 is unsustainable. Accordingly, it is set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Basic Education Officer, Deoriarespondent no. 2 to consider the matter afresh in the light of observations made hereinabove. The said exercise be completed after affording opportunity to the petitioner-committee of management, expeditiously preferably within two months from the date of communication of the order.

¶8

With the above direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed of . No order as to costs.

¶9

Order Date :- 20.3.2018 A. Pandey

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Sant Kabir Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Preeti Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raja Ram Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Kumar Yadav Adn 2 Others Vs State of Up and 5 Others

Renu Gupta Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Jay Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Dayawati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others