Allowed

Shailesh Kumar Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Apr 2019WRIA/4887/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition seeking appointment of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers. The court held that in light of the selection and clarifications from the State Examination Regulatory Authority, the petitioner must be processed for appointment by the District Basic Education Officer.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed; the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad is directed to process the candidature of the petitioners.

Shailesh Kumar Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4887 of 2016

¶3

Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Chandra Tripath,S.C.Tripathi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Bhanu Pratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents as well as Sri B.P. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the Basic Education Officer.

¶6

This petition has been preferred for a direction being issued commanding the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad, the fourth respondent herein to appoint the petitioners as Assistant Teachers consequent to their selection in a process which was initiated by the respondents.

¶7

Before this Court, it is not disputed that the petitioners were duly selected and included in the list as prepared. An issue appears to have arisen with respect to the validity of the BTC certificates held by the petitioners and granted by the Nehru Gram Bharati University (deemed University) for the Session 2010-11. The certificates issued by that University are stated to have been accorded approval by both the State Government as well as the NCTE. However in the initial order which was passed by the State Government on 29 May 2013 the recognition and approval to the certificates as administered by that University were restricted to the academic session 2012-13. Upon the

¶8

matter being represented, the State Government appears to have amended the stipulation as contained in its order granting approval and by a separate order dated 7 July 2014 held that the earlier order stood amended to the extent of the approval being read as from the Session 2010-11. The matter of the petitioners is thereafter stated to have been forwarded to the State Examination Regulatory Authority on 5 August 2014 for further clarification. The Secretary of the State Examination Regulatory Authority in terms of her communication dated 2 September 2014 had clarified the entire matter and called upon the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad to proceed in the matter in light of the order of the State Government dated 7 July 2014. In light of the aforesaid stand which stands duly disclosed in the last of the communications referred to above, no further legal impediment is either shown or established.

¶9

Sri B.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Basic Education Officer sought to contend that the certificates which are held by the petitioners have not been issued by the State Examination Regulatory Authority and therefore cannot be countenanced. The Court however, finds itself unable to sustain this objection in light of the undisputed clarification issued by the Authority itself.

¶10

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad is hereby directed to process the candidature of the petitioners in light of the observations made hereinabove.

¶11

Order Date :- 29.4.2019 LA/-

Shailesh Kumar Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailesh Kumar Yadav and 2 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit Vashishth and Another Vs Up Power Corporation Limited and 3 Others

Ravi Yadav Vs Up Power Corporation Limited and 3 Others

Awdhesh Sonker Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Nirendra Singh Vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Another

Rajendra Prasad Kabir Vs District Inspector of Schools Mahoba and 4 Others

Davendra Pal Singh Vs Registrar General and 3 Others