Remanded

Pushpendra Pawar v. State of U P and 7 Others

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2022WRIA/20018/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a non-speaking order rejecting a promotion claim, the court found the order deficient as it failed to consider the petitioner's eligibility. The impugned order was set aside and remanded to pass a fresh order within one month.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to respondent no.3 to pass a fresh order within one month.

Pushpendra Pawar Vs State of U P and 7 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20018 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Pushpendra Pawar Respondent :- State Of U P And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avneesh Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Neha Roy Chaudhary, Advocate, holding brief of learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Neeraj Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and, Shri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.8.

¶6

Challenge has been raised to the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by respondent no.3/Regional Higher Education Officer, Madhavpuram, Meerut whereby the petitioner's claim for promotion on the post of Laboratory Assistant (Physics) at Gochar Mahavidyalaya, Rampur Maniharan, Saharanpur, has been rejected.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it transpires, the impugned order is wholly silent/non-speaking. It merely refers to the Statute 27.01(ii) of the Statutes of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut as a reason to reject the promotion sought. Perusal of the Statute 20.01(ii) reveals, the same provides for educational qualification for promotion on the post of Laboratory Assistant as also for work experience on the feeder post i.e. Laboratory Bearer for that promotion. Here, the petitioner claims to hold degree in B.Sc. (Physics) as also work experience of more than 15 years on the post of Laboratory Bearer.

¶8

The above claim of the petitioner has not been considered in light of prescribed eligibility. Unless the same had been considered and some reason given to reject the claim, this Court

¶9

may never be in a position to approve the order of respondent no.3/Regional Higher Education Officer, Madhavpuram, Meerut.

¶10

In such facts, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for counter affidavit as the impugned order is a mute order. It is hereby set aside. Matter is remitted to the respondent no.3 to pass a fresh order keeping in mind the observations made above. Such exercise may be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from today.

¶11

With the aforesaid observation, present petition stands disposed of .

¶12

Order Date :- 19.12.2022 Prakhar

¶13

Digitally signed by PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.12.20 10:26:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pushpendra Pawar v. State of U P and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpendra Pawar v. State of U P and 7 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

Amita Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Sri Ramlala Higher Secondary School, Rawatpur, Kanpur Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dr. (Smt.) Seema Kodesiaa Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Madan Gopal Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Km Seema Anjum Vs State of U.P. and 7 Othesr