Dismissed

Reena Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2021SPLAD/31/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal challenging dismissal of writ petition where an Assistant Teacher posted in the office of Basic Education Officer requested posting to a school. Supreme Court dismissed appeal, upholding the lower court but directed government to revise the 1987 order to employ teachers mainly in schools.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/-. Government directed to revisit the 26.08.1987 order to post teachers mainly in schools.

Reena Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 31 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Reena Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Order on Exemption Application

¶6

The application seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the order of the High Court is allowed.

¶7

The defect stands cured.

¶8

Order on Appeal

¶9

By this appeal a challenge is made to the order dated 17.12.2020 whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶10

It is a case where the petitioner was selected on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School in the year 1999. She was promoted on the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior High School by the order dated 8th May, 2002. She was posted in the office of Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur. It was in terms of the office order dated 26.08.1987. The petitioner-appellant continued with the same arrangement in the office of Basic Education Officer even after her promotion.

¶11

By the impugned order of posting, she was posted in the Junior High School. She challenged the said order before the learned Single Judge. The order was assailed on the ground that even while posted in office of the Basic Education Officer, appellant was working as an Assistant Teacher. The office order dated 26.08.1987 was not in violation of the statutory provisions.The writ petition was however dismissed.

¶12

The prayer is to set aside the judgment and if not then cause interference in regard to the imposition of cost.

¶13

We have considered the submission made by the appellant and perused the record.

¶14

It is not in dispute that after initial appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Teacher in Junior High School. Despite her promotion, she continued in the office of Basic Education, Gorakhpur.

¶15

A teacher is required to be deputed firstly in the school but instead of doing that, a practice has been developed in the State of U.P. to depute/post them in the office

¶16

The basic duties of the teacher remains in the school. The shortage of the teachers in the school is not unknown fact. Despite of it, government issued an order on 26.08.87 and allowed the teachers to work in the office of Basic Education Officer.

¶17

In any case, even if the Assistant Teacher was posted to work in the office of the Basic Education Officer, it does not mean that she cannot be posted to discharge the duties as Assistant Teacher in the School.

¶18

Accordingly, we do not find any error in the judgment to dismiss the writ petition.

¶19

The appeal is in the hands of a teacher who do not intend to work as Assistant Teacher in the school but wants to remain in the office of the Basic Education Officer. The conduct of the appellant is writ large and is effecting the Education system in the State of U.P. It may be due to an order passed by Government ignoring the shortage of teachers in the school.

¶20

The learned Single Judge thus, rightly made observation on order rather we further direct the government to revisit the order dated 26.08.1987 so that the teacher may work mainly in the schools instead of the office.

¶21

The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/-.

¶22

The learned counsel for the Basic Education Parishad is directed to apprise the Secretary of the Parishad about the direction given in this judgment. They would revisit the Government order so that teachers are posted mainly in the school.

¶23

Order Date :- 22.1.2021 piyush

Reena Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reena Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhunjishaw Khusharo Ghandhi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Regional Manager Uco Bank and Another Vs Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj

Reeta Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shubhawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Himanshu Pradhan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Avanish Kumar Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others