Disposed

Navneet Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2023/6774/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a direction for transfer from Primary School, Saichanmau to District Pratapgarh. Court declined to examine merits, directing the authority to consider and finally decide the pending representation expeditiously within four months in accordance with applicable rules.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to consider and finally decide petitioner's pending representation on transfer within four months.

Navneet Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:58845

¶2

Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6774 of 2023 etitioner :- Navneet Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajai Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4.

¶5

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to transfer the petitioner from his current posting which is at Primary School, Saichanmau, District Hardoi to District Pratapgarh.

¶6

It is also submitted that the petitioner had already moved a representation which is engaging the attention of the authority concerned, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 1.

¶7

Considering the fact that the petitioner has already moved a representation and the same is to be considered by the respondent no. 4, accordingly, this Court finds that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.4 to consider and finally decide the pending representation of the petitioner most expeditiously in accordance with Rule Rule 8 (2) (d) of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rule, 2008 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties preferably within a period of four months from the date an authenticated copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned.

¶8

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of the petitioner on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶9

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶10

Order Date :- 12.9.2023 Asheesh

¶11

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Navneet Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navneet Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. and 3 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

Mahngoo and Others Vs Babulla

Rungta Irrigation Ltd. Thru. Tabish Ahmad Vs U.P. Jal Nigam Thru. Material Manager Lko.

Km. Sarita Manglani and Anr. Vs Shiv Mohan Awasthi and Anr.

Rameshwar Kushwaha Vs Munshi Lal and Ors.

Bechan and Others Vs Shyam Lal

Union of India through General Manager N.E.R.Gorakhpur Vs M/S Hari Trading Company Bareilly