In this special appeal, the single special bench dismissed the petitioner's challenge to an order rejecting his claim for appointment as Assistant Teacher. The court held the appeal devoid of merit due to incomplete training and existing Supreme Court directives on vacancy filling.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 61 of 2023
Appellant :- Sushil Kumar Singh Tomar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Somesh Tripathi,Haider Abbas Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Ran Vijay Singh
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned State Counsel, Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel representing District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi and Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel representing Mr. U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj.
By instituting the proceedings of this special appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of Rules of the Court, 1952, the appellantpetitioner seeks to challenge an order dated 24.01.2023, whereby Writ-A No.617 of 2023 filed by him has been dismissed and his claim for appointment as Assistant Teacher in a Basic School has not been acceded to.
Pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 2011 certain selections were held and accordingly the appellant-petitioner was selected as Trainee Teacher on 02.02.2015. Pursuant to his selection he submitted his joining for training at the Primary School, Daanpur, Development Block Pihani, District Hardoi, however, he could not complete the training on account of certain ailments etc., as a result of which he was not given substantive appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. In the meantime, the selection process in which the appellant-
petitioner had participated became subject matter of challenge before this Court in several writ petitions and the proceedings were carried up to Hon'ble Supreme Court, where the dispute was kept at rest by means of a judgment and order dated 25.07.2017, passed in Special Leave to Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014; State of U.P. and Shiv Kumar Pathak and other connected matters. In compliance of the said order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25.07.2017 the authorities found that at that time 66,655 posts were filled in or were in the process of being filled in resulting in remaining posts which were 6170 in number. It is the case of the official respondents that these vacancies against 6170 posts could not be filled in for the reason that Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 25.07.2017 had observed that 66,655 teachers have already been appointed in pursuance to the interim order of Hon'ble Supreme Court and further that having regard to the entirety of the circumstances Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to disturb the said appointments. However, while doing so, Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 25.07.2017 further provided that the State shall be at liberty to fill up the remaining vacancies in accordance with law, after issuing fresh advertisement.
Thus, if the prayer made by appellant-petitioner is accepted, that will have an impact of unsettling the position already settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment and order dated 25.07.2017. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.27180 (S/S) of 2017 which was decided on 13.11.2017 permitting the appellant-petitioner to make a representation to the District Basic Education Officer who in tern was directed to decide the same. In compliance of the said order passed by this Court on 13.11.2017 the District Basic Education Officer passed an order dated 03.12.2022 rejecting the claim of the
appellant-petitioner on the grounds as already noted by us above. It is this order dated 03.12.2022 which was challenged before learned Single Judge, however, learned Single Judge by the order under appeal dismissed the writ petition.
We have already noticed the reasons as to why the appellantpetitioner cannot be offered appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The reasons which can be deciphered are (i) he did not complete the training, and (ii) in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed on 25.07.2017 the remaining vacancies which are 6170 in number are to be filled in by way of issuing a fresh advertisement.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. The special appeal is devoid of merit, which is accordingly dismissed . However, there will be no orders as to the costs.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (D.K. Upadhyaya, J.)
Order Date :- 28.2.2023 Ram.
Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the special appeal seeking appointment of the appellant as Assistant Teacher should be allowed in view of Supreme Court judgment keeping the dispute at rest.
Whether the appellant can be offered appointment considering incomplete training and Supreme Court directions regarding filling remaining vacancies by fresh advertisement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of U.P. and Shiv Kumar PathakReferred¶9
Special Leave to Appeal Nos.4347-4375 of 2014
Sushil Kumar Singh Tomar
State Of U.P.
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Subhash Vidyarthi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
