Disposed

Sadhna v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2019WRIA/17031/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition without merits. It directed the Secretary, Board of Basic Education, to consider the petitioner's grievances regarding salary denial via a reasoned order within one month after a fresh representation is filed within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to file fresh representation within two weeks; respondent to decide via reasoned order within one month thereafter.

Sadhna Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17031 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sadhna Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Chandra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ras Bihari Pradhan

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The petitioner has been appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher at Primary School, Mahurasa Block, Sadat District Ghazipur by appointment letter dated 05.09.2018. Petitioner joined the institution pursuant to the aforesaid appointment letter on 19.09.2018 and is working since the date of joining.

¶7

It appears that respondent no.3-District Basic Education Officer, Ghazipur has doubt as to whether petitioner could be allowed to continue as Assistant Teacher as she had obtained diploma in elementary education after intermediate from S.C.E.R.T., New Delhi, whereas she should have done this diploma after graduation. The respondent no.3 in this regard has sought certain direction from Secretary, Board of Basic Education.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy as to whether the diploma in elementary education obtained by the petitioner after intermediate is valid or not is set as such by this Court in Writ A No.23961 of 2018 and thus, the objection of the respondent no.3 is totally misconceived. He submits that petitioner, in this regard, has submitted representations to the Secretary, Board of Basic Education, copy of which is annexed as Annexure 18 to the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that though, her appointment is legal but she has been denied salary.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and appropriate direction be issued to respondent no.2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner.

¶10

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 file a fresh representation before the respondent no.2-Secretary, Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj raising all

¶11

her grievances within a period of two weeks from today. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same by reasoned and speaking order within a period of one month thereafter.

¶12

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of . Order Date :- 26.11.2019 Sattyarth

Sadhna v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhna v. State of U.P. and 3 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

C/M Madarsa Masdarul Uloom Asdaqiya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Dharam Pal Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arshad Ali and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Brijendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deshraj Patel Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others