Disposed

Ghan Shyam Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2019WRIA/1114/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought appointment as Assistant Teacher. Court directed him to make a fresh representation regarding his eligibility and allotment, directing the competent authority to decide within specified timelines without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed to make fresh representation; Respondents to decide within six weeks if representation is made.

Ghan Shyam Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1114 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ghan Shyam Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Chandra Tripathi,Radha Kant Ojha, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri S. C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri A. K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶6

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and also permit him to join at Primary School, Bharthipur, Koraon, District Allahabad (Prayagraj) with further prayer to direct the respondents to take necessary and proper decision on the representations of the petitioner dated 17.9.2018 and 5.12.2018 pending before him.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent no.2 has prepared a select list of the candidates in which 41,556 candidates were initially found to be successful, however due to reservation policy only 34,660 candidates were finally found valid for the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. Thereafter, again a supplementary select list of the candidates were issued in which name of the petitioner was found placed. The respondent no.3 has issued appointment letters in favour of the candidates to whom school have been allotted and also issued the rejected list but the name of the petitioner was not included in rejected candidates list or the candidates to whom school have been allotted. He made several representations but no action has been taken till date.

¶8

In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation, along-with copy of the earlier representations dated 17.9.2018 and 5.12.2018 and the certified copy of this order, before the respondent no.3/District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj

¶9

(Allahabad) within a period of two weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the respondent no.3, is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a further period of six weeks thereafter.

¶10

With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶11

It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case and thus it is for authority concerned to take a decision independently in accordance with law.

¶12

Order Date :- 24.1.2019 Pramod Tripathi

Ghan Shyam Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghan Shyam Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savinay Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Umesh Babu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Madhu Rani Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Brijendra Kumar Shukla and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kavita Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Deepa Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others