Disposed

Rachna v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC11 May 2023WRIA/6841/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Shiksha Mitra, sought rejoining at a school. The Court disposed of the writ by directing re filing of a comprehensive representation before the District Magistrate, Kasganj, for timely consideration, reserving opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file comprehensive representation before Respondent No. 3 within two weeks; Respondent No. 3 directed to decide within two months.

Rachna Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:101546

¶2

Court No. - 36

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6841 of 2023 Petitioner :- Rachna Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Chandra Tripathi,Kunwar Ajay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Satyendra Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Suresh Kumar, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 2, 4 & 5. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of he respondent no. 1 and 3.

¶6

The petitioner who is admittedly a Shiksha Mitra and is stated to have obtained the necessary BTC qualification, has approached this Court claiming following reliefs:-

¶7

A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.05.2019 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Kashiram Nagar (Kasganj).

¶8

B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to rejoin as Shiksha Mitra at Primary SchoolPithanpur, Block-Sahawar, District Kasganj and also pay honorarium/salary month to month.

¶9

C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take decision on the application dated 20.02.2023 for rejoining as Shiksha Mitra at Primary School, Pithanpur, Block-Sahawar, District-Kasganj.

¶10

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner confines his submissions and presses the relief No. C only.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had approached this Court on previous occasion by means of Writ A No. 3541 of 2019. The writ petition, was disposed of vide order dated 26.03.2019, after recording the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to prefer a representation addressed to the respondent no. 3, District Basic Education Officer, Kasganj, and the respondent no. 3 was required to pass appropriate orders on the said representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law after taking into consideration the Government Order dated 14.08.2022 within a period of six weeks.

¶12

Pursuant to the direction of this Court vide order dated 26.03.2019, the District Basic Education Officer, Kasganj, has proceeded to issue a communication dated 17.05.2019 addressed to the Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj,

¶13

seeking guidance as to what is required to be done in the case of the petitioner.

¶14

Shri Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of Shiksha Mitra, it is the Committee, headed by the District Magistrate, which has to consider the appointment of the petitioner and the District Basic Education Officer, respondent no. 4, herein, is not competent to decide the claim of the petitioner.

¶15

It is also contended by Shri Tripathi that the petitioner has preferred an application dated 20.02.2023 making prayer for rejoining of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra at Primary School-Pithanpur, Block-Sahawar, District Kasganj, which is stated to be pending. He submits that the application dated 20.02.2023 has been incorrectly addressed to the District Basic Education Officer, Kasganj and he may be permitted to file a fresh application addressed to the District Magistrate, Kasganj, respondent no. 3.

¶16

Shri Suresh Kumar, learned counsel, representing the respondent nos. 2, 4 and 5 as well as learned Standing Counsel, representing the State respondents submit that in the eventuality of filing a fresh representation, before the District Magistrate, Kasganj, the same shall be considered by the Committee headed by the District Magistrate, Kasganj in the light of the Government Order dated 14.08.2012.

¶17

Considering the innocuous prayer made by Shri Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner this Court is of the opinion that the claim raised in this writ petition and sought to be raised in the representation can be better addressed by the respondent no. 3 at the first instance.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by requiring the petitioner to prefer a fresh comprehensive representation clearly setting forth her claim for rejoining as Shiksha Mitra in the institution in question within a period of two weeks from today before the respondent No. 3.

¶19

In the eventuality of such representation being filed by the petitioner before the respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, District Kasganj, it is directed that the respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, District Kasganj, shall consider the representation made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon after considering all aspects of the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶20

Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and it shall be open for the respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, District Kasganj to pass appropriate orders.

¶21

Order Date :- 11.5.2023 Deepak/

¶22

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

Rachna v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rachna 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Nandan Gautam Vs Central Bank of India and 3 Others

Mayank Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhagirathi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Alka Sahu and 27 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Km Nishtha Pal (Minor) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Neeraj Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others