Disposed

C/M Janata Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2019WRIA/16854/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition challenging the denial of confirmation for an Assistant Teacher based on government order restricting appointments to one, the Court disposed of the matter via consent without adjudicating merits, granting liberty to file a representation to the Director of Education with liberty to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Liberty filed fresh representation to Director of Education to decide grievance after hearing within two weeks and issue speaking order within two months.

C/M Janata Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16854 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Janata Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Chandra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

The petitioner is Committee of Management of an institution known as Janta Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Baluigarha, Bhauwapar, District- Gorakhpur. It appears that for selection on two posts of Assistant Teacher, the permission was sought from Respondent No. 4- District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur, who vide order dated 10.09.2018, granted the permission to the petitioner to advertise the vacancies.

¶8

Pursuant to said permission, the petitioner proceeded with the selection for appointment on the two posts. The petitioner completed the selection process in which, Manorama Yadav was selected in Science and Amer Deep Gupta, was selected in Social Science. By order dated 21.02.2019 passed by Respondent No.4- District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur, the approval was granted to Manorama Yadav, however, the approval to the appointment of Amer Deep Gupta, was not granted on the ground that the approval can be granted to the appointment of only one Assistant Teacher in view of the Government Order dated 15.01.2019.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the said order has contended that the finding recorded by Respondent No. 4- District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur in order dated 14.02.2019 is incorrect inasmuch as considering the strength of the students in the institution, two posts are required to be sanctioned. He further submits that the Deputy Director of Education by order dated 21.05.2019 has directed Respondent No. 4- District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur to submit his report of actual strength of students in the institution after physical verification. He also contended that the petitioner has submitted a representation to Respondent No. 4- District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur on 25.09.2019, through

¶10

registered post, pointing out the illegality in the order dated 21.02.2019 in disapproving the appointment of Amer Deep Gupta.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel submits that it appears from the record that the Joint Director of Education has sought report from Respondent No. 4- District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur with respect to the number of students in the petitioner's institution, and if the petitioner approaches the Respondent No.2- Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow with his grievance, he shall consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before Respondent No.2- Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow, raising all his grievances within a period of two weeks from today. In case any such representation is filed, Respondent No.2- Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow, shall consider and decide the same by reasoned and speaking order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all the concerned parties within a period of two months thereafter.

¶13

The writ petition is disposed of, subject to observations above.

¶14

Order Date :- 29.11.2019 S.K.

C/M Janata Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Janata Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Asha S. Nelson Vs State of U.P. and Others

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mrs. U.K. Sharma Vs Union of India and Others

Uma Kant Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Ananya Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Sunita Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others