Dismissed

Aradhana Rathour v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 May 2023WRIA/3676/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The judge dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking appointment as an Assistant Teacher by claiming entitlement to an additional mark. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of a prior judgment as she was not a party to it and her petition was not pending when it was decided.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition seeking appointment as Assistant Teacher by claiming benefit from a prior judgment was dismissed for lack of merit.

Aradhana Rathour Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:110066

¶2

Court No. - 36

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3676 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Aradhana Rathour Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- CSC

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

The case has been called out in the revised list.

¶7

Heard Sri C. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner in response to the Advertisement dated 05.12.2018 inviting online applications from the eligible and qualified candidates w.e.f. 06.12.2018 for filling up 69000 posts of Assistant Teachers, applied and appeared in the examination held on 06.01.2019 as a general category candidate. The petitioner obtained 99 marks out of 150. The qualifying marks in the said examination was 97 out of 150 for the general category. It is the case of the petitioner that she is entitled to the benefit of the judgment passed in Special Appeal (D) No.343 of 2021. If the petitioner is extended the benefit of 01 mark she will stand qualified.

¶9

It is under such circumstances that the petitioner has claimed the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to consider the grievances of the petitioner for appointment of Assistant Teacher granting additional one mark and the petitioner may be selected as Assistant Teacher in selection of 69000 Assistant Teacher Recruitment 2019.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of 01 mark as claimed by her. The benefit of the decision was available to either the appellants in the Special Appeal (D) No.343 of 2021 or to the petitioners whose writ petition assailing the result and allotment of marks was pending. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the Special Appeal (D) No.343 of 2021 nor her writ petition was pending on the date the decision in Special Appeal (D) No.343 of 2021 was

¶11

passed and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondent Nos.1 & 2 has pointed out that the petitioner was sitting on the fence awaiting the outcome of the special appeal. She filed the writ petition only when the appeal was decided granting limited benefit to the writ petitioners whose writ petitions were pending on the date of the order and to appellants of the special appeal.

¶13

It is also submitted that this Court in a bunch of writ petition leading amongst them, being Writ-A No. 836 of 2023 has dealt with the identical issue as involved in the present writ petition and after considering the ratio of the decision rendered in Special Appeal (D) No. 343 of 2021(Abhishek Srivastava and 14 others versus State of U.P. and others) as also in Special Appeal No. 184 of 2022 [Km. Shalini versus State of U.P. through Secretary (Basic Education) & 6 others] decided on 4.5.2022, Special Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Sandhya Singh versus State of U.P. and others) decided on 21.1.2022, Special Appeal Defective No. 1041 of 2021 (Harikesh Kumar Yadav versus State of U.P. & others) decided on 16.5.2022, Special Appeal (Defective) No. 123 of 2022 (Avneesh Singh & others versus State of U.P. and others) decided on 6.5.2022 has proceeded to hold that the writ petition lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed.

¶14

I have gone through the pleadings of the present writ petition and find that the issue involved in the writ petition is identical to the one raised in the bunch of writ petitions leading amongst them, being Writ-A No.836 of 2023 . Following the dictum of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, I find that there is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 19.5.2023 pks

¶16

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

Aradhana Rathour v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aradhana Rathour v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Meena Kumari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ashok Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Gaurishankar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others