Allowed

Anju Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC28 Apr 2022WRIA/4038/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order allotting the petitioner to District Kasganj, holding that it was arbitrary. The court directed authorities to allot the petitioner her first preference, District Aligarh, and issue her appointment letter within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Petitioner allotted District Aligarh; Appointment letter to be issued within three weeks.

Anju Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4038 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Anju Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Nath Yadav,Akhilesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Yogendra Singh Bohra

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Supplementary Counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and supplementary rejoinder affidavit have been filed today, which are taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Y.S.Bohra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 5.

¶7

The petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing the order dated 19.1.2022 passed by respondent no.2, Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow, on the ground that the candidates, who have secured lesser quality point marks, have been allotted District Aligarh while petitioner has been sent to Kasganj.

¶8

Clear averments in this regard was made in paragraph nos. 7 and 8 of the writ petition substantiated by the supporting documents.

¶9

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2, only reply given is that allotment process of districts was made through software developed by NIC on the basis of quality point marks as well as criteria and norms. The quality point marks of the petitioner is 70.08 and accordingly she has been allotted District Kasganj. For allotment of Schools in District Aligarh the last quality point mark is 71.17 regarding the category of O.B.C. (Female) and hence petitioner has not been allotted the District Aligarh.

¶10

In paragraph nos. 7 & 8, the petitioner has given the averments in the writ petition are follows:-

¶11

"7. Inspite of having quality point marks to the petitioner 70.08, she could not be given the first preference home

¶12

district Aligarh offered by her, regard to given the joining in the same, even the other candidates belonging to General Category and O.B.C. category having their cut off marks 68.21 and 67.42 respectively given them first preference district Aligarh, regard to offered the joining in the same in which name of some persons Pooja Vishanav, Kumari Nidhi, Angli Yadav, Sonu Verma and others discriminating with the petitioner, whose quality point marks is 70.08 above to the cut off marks despite to be given the joining in District Aligarh and the candidate who have secured less marks to the petitioner has been given joining in District Aligarh. A photocopy of the candidates offered joining in district Aligarh at the first preference district Aligarh offered by them having their Gunvatta/quality point marks less to the petitioner is being file herewith and marked as Annexure No.3 to this writ petition.

¶13

8. When in came in knowledge to the petitioner regard to the discrimination and violating the norms of Aritcles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India for giving the first preference district Aligarh with the petitioner, she filed a representation on 02.02.2021 before the respondent authorities, apprising to the facts that petitioner's Gunvatta/quality point marks is 70.08 but she has not been given the first preference District Aligarh offered by her, even others, whose Gunvatta/quality point marks are less to the petitioner that are 68.21 and 67.42, pertaining to the General candidates and O.B.C. respectively, have been offered them to be given the joint first preference District Aligarh . A photocopy of the representation dated 02.2.2021 filed by petitioner before the respondents authorities alongwith the postal receipt is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.4 to this writ petition"

¶14

Clearly the averments of the petitioner in the aforesaid paragraphs are not replied even in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 & 5. The same reply has been given as in the counter affidavit by the answering respondents.

¶15

In view of the above, the impugned order dated dated 19.1.2022 passed by respondent no.2, Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow, is hereby quashed.

¶16

The respondents are directed to allot District Aligarh to the petitioner, which was the first preference taking into account her quality point marks, which was above from

¶17

the many of the candidates shown in Annexure no.3 to the writ petition. The appointment letter of the petitioner shall be issued within three weeks from today by the respondent no.2.

¶18

The writ petition is allowed.

¶19

Order Date :- 28.4.2022 Ruchi Agrahari

¶20

Digitally signed by RUCHI AGRAHARI Date: 2022.04.28 16:19:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anju Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Umesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Kailasi Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Hari Om Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Saurabh Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Gazala Khatoon and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ankit Kumar Vs State of U P and Another