Disposed

Shailendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2022WRIA/15187/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the Board's appointment of a Principal. It held that while no immediate interference is warranted, the Board is not functus officio. Instead, the petitioner was directed to file a proper complaint under Section 16E(10) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 before the State Government within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Allowed placement in principal appointment decision.)

Shailendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15187 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Ajeet Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kushmondeya Shahi,Rajendra Prasad,Yogesh Kumar Saxena

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Shahi learned counsel for the Board, Sri Y.K. Saxena learned counsel for the private respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶7

Petitioner is the officiating Principal of Sri Jawahar Inter College, Chakar Nagar Etawah. He is opposed to the appointment of Sri Sarvesh Kumar Chaturvedi-respondent No. 7 as the Principal of that institution, pursuant to the selection made by the Board. It is his case, private respondent is not eligible. Today, Sri Awasthi has placed a decision of the Full Bench in Maiku Lal Sen Vs. Jay Jay Ram Upadhyay and Others, 2019(6) ADJ 136 (FB) to submit, the Board would become functus officio upon completion of the selection process and it would only be the State Government under Section 16E(10) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') that may have jurisdiction to deal with the objection as to the appointment of respondent No.7.

¶8

While no interference is warranted with the order passed by the Board, it is left open to the petitioner to file a proper application/complaint under Section 16E(10) of the Act.

¶9

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction, in case petitioner files a proper application/complaint supported

¶10

by his personal affidavit annexing thereto such documents he may seek to rely disclosing all necessary facts alongwith a copy of this order before the respondent No. 1 within a period of two weeks from today, that application/complaint may be decided in accordance with Section 16E(10) of the Act, after giving due notice to respondent No. 7 and the Committee of Management. Such exercise may be completed within a period of three months from the date of compliance shown by the petitioner.

¶11

Order Date :- 21.10.2022 Faraz

¶12

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.10.21 17:32:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shailendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Rajesh Kumar Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sheeshpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M Shri Vaishnav Bhagwan Deshraj Suri Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Prabhu Dayal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and 2 Others

Prashant Bansal Vs Central Board of Secondary Education Siksha Kendra and Community Centre and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others