Allowed

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

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2019WRIA/20070/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by allowing it and directing respondents to consider the petitioner's appointment as an Assistant Teacher under N.C.T.E. Notifications, following an earlier order citing a precedent.

What did the court decide?

All respondents directed to consider the petitioner's case for appointment as Assistant Teacher under N.C.T.E. Notifications expeditiously within two months, subject to no other impediment.

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

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20070 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Umesh Babu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Shiv Poojan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mangla Prasad Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri Mangla Prasad Rai, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶6

Vide order dated 18.9.2018 all the respondents were granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed till date.

¶7

When the matter was taken up today, it is admitted by all the counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgement delivered on 12.12.2017 in Writ A No.47490 of 2017 (Km. Pallavi Vs. State of U.P. and others). Following the said judgement another order was passed by this Court in Writ A No.7865 of 2018, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶8

" Heard Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Shri A.K. Yadav appears for the respondent no.3.

¶9

At the very outset learned counsel for the parties agree that the claim of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgement and order passed in Writ A No.47490 of 2017 (Km. Pallavi vs. State of UP and ors) decided on 12.12.2017 whereby the writ petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in terms of the N.C.T.E. Notifications, expeditiously within two months from the date provided there is no other impediment.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is also disposed of with the same terms and directions as given in the writ petition, referred above. "

¶11

In the facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is also disposed of in same terms and conditions as contained in the order dated 15.3.2018 passed in Writ A No.7865 of 2018.

¶12

Order Date :- 23.1.2019 Pramod Tripathi

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Babu 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

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Dutt Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lakhan Singh and 16 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajendra Prasad Pasi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

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

Tribhuwan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others