The High Court dismissed the petition filed by Usha Devi seeking a direction to her appointment as Assistant Teacher, finding no evidence she had applied for the post.
Writ petition dismissed due to lack of evidence regarding applicant's application for the post.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18354 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Usha Devi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Panchu Ram Maurya,Prashant Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prem Prakash Yadav
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondent no. 2 to give appointment to the petitioner according to her qualifications as required for the post of Assistant Teacher / Assistant Mistress in Junior Basic Schools.
This Court specifically asked learned counsel for the petitioner to show from the records of the present writ petition that the petitioner has applied for the post of Assistant Teacher / Assistant Mistress and the relevant advertisement for recruitment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has made a representation dated 27.3.2017 to the District Basic Education Officer, Bijnor intimating him that the petitioner has completed Special BTC Course, 2007 in the year 2016 and has also passed TET in the year 2013-2014 and requested for appointment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court dated 7.11.2019 in Writ-A No. 27435 of 2018 (Mahima Srivastava & 5 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others). The aforesaid judgment is on the point of relaxation in age which is not the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable on the facts of the present case.
For all the reasons aforestated, I do not find any good reason to issue a direction to the respondent no. 2 as prayed by the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
It is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner for obtaining employment on the post of Assistant Teacher in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Arif
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any material in the records to justify granting an appointment to the petitioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahima Srivastava & 5 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 othersDistinguished¶7
Writ-A No. 27435 of 2018 (Mahima Srivastava & 5 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others)
Usha Devi
State of U.P.
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
