Disposed

Sachidanand Pathak v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2019WRIA/810/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order cites a prior decision in W.A. No. 9532 of 2016 regarding the petitioner's claim for appointment after completing special B.T.C. training. The Court notes the prior direction to consider the claim on merits but clarifies that the current order does not decide the claim on merits.

What did the court decide?

None; the Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's claim on merits within two months but stated it had not adjudicated the claim.

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

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 810 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sachidanand Pathak Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avanish Ranjan Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri B.P.Singh, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4.

¶6

It is contented by learned counsel for the petitioner that identical controversy has already been decided by this Court in Writ A No. 9532 of 2016 (Balendra Kumar And 11 others Vs.State of U.P. and 3 others) ) decided on 11.12.2018. The order passed in the aforesaid case is quoted below-

¶7

"In spite of the stop order passed by this Court dated 4th January, 2018, no counter affidavit has been filed even after the expiry of 12 months period by now. No further request for grant of counter affidavit can be allowed.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

The petitioner claims appointment pursuant to the training that he has undergone against the advertisement for special B.T.C. course, 2008. The petitioner has also passed the U.P.T.E.T. Examination, 2011 acquiring the eligibility for appointment in primary level. In the opinion of the Court once the petitioner has obtained special B.T.C. training course, the appointment cannot be denied to the petitioner unless of course there is no more any vacancy available pursuant to the advertisement in respect of which the petitioner has been given special B.T.C. training course.

¶10

In view of the above, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner on merits by passing appropriate order in the matter positively within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶11

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation/ regulation."

¶12

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to issue mandamus commanding the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic School run by Board of Basic Education in District Azamgarh. A further prayer is to issue mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to function as Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic Schools

¶13

established by Board of Basic Eduction and to pay the petitioner regular monthly salary on the said post every month.

¶14

It is contented that the petitioner possessed teachers training qualification of B.Ed. It is further contented that the petitioner was selected for Special B.T.C. cource 2008. He has completed aforesaid training from District Institute of Education & Training (DIET) Jafrabad, Azamgarh. Petitioner has also placed reliance on Section 23 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. In this background of the matter it is prayed that the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief.

¶15

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that in case petitioner makes a representation before the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad/Respondent no. 3 along with certified copy of this order within two weeks from today, the third respondent is directed to take appropriate decision in the matter relating to the petitioner and communicate the same to the petitioner within a further period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order strictly in accordance with law.

¶16

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicate the claim of the petitioner on merits and it is for the concerned authority to take a decision independently, in accordance with law.

¶17

With the aforesaid observation/directions the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 21.1.2019 M.A.Ansari

Sachidanand Pathak v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachidanand Pathak 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

C/M of Ramanuj Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Varanasi, and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hemant Prakash and 18 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sangeeta Pal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanjay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kamal Kant Pal and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M Sriram Lakhan Singh Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others