Disposed

Hoshiyar Singh Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2023WRIA/20752/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking regularisation of the petitioner's appointment as an Assistant Teacher without hearing the respondents. The petitioner was granted liberty to file comprehensive representation before the Joint Director of Education.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to prefer comprehensive representation before Joint Director of Education.

Hoshiyar Singh Rajpoot Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:237679

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20752 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Hoshiyar Singh Rajpoot Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhat Kumar Singh,Akhilendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Manoj Vashishtha, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for respondents 1, 2 and 3.

¶7

In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the fourth respondent.

¶8

The writ petitioner claims to have been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the fourth respondent institution, Shri Janta Inter College Ajitmal Auraiya on 1.7.1995. An approval order was issued by the District, Inspector of Schools, Etawah on 9.3.1995 approving his selection. Since salary was not being paid then again a fresh order was passed on 18.2.2003 pursuant to the order of the writ court approving his appointment. The petitioner claims to continue on the post in question however he seeks regularisation under Section 33G of the U.P. Act No.5 of 1982.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the issues with the writ petitioner to raise needs determination at the first instance by the Committee constituted therein thus the writ petitioner may represent his cause before the second respondent, Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur who shall address to the claim of the writ petitioner. He further submits that he does not propose to file any response to the writ petition.

¶10

Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well as stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed off without seeking any response from the respondents granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with the self-attested copy of the writ petition before the second respondent, Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur who shall on the receipt of the same, put to notice to the fourth respondent and thereafter proceed to decide the claim of the

¶11

petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order.

¶12

Needless to point out that the writ petition has been decided without seeking any response from the respondents. Thus, passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the case.

¶13

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 15.12.2023 piyush

¶15

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hoshiyar Singh Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hoshiyar Singh Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Suresh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar Siwal @ Ishmeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Suman Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhimsen Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Daya Shankar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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