Disposed

Manish Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thro Secy. Madhyamik Edu. and 4 Ors.

Allahabad HC21 Jul 2023WRIA/912/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

While entertaining a writ petition regarding teacher appointment disputes, this Single Judge disposed of the matter by direction, affirming continued service and financial benefits for the petitioner and other TGTs/Lecturers pending regular selection under Section 11-E(11) of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Direct that TGTs/Lecturers continue employment and receive financial benefits corresponding to regular appointments under Section 11-E(11) of the Act until regular selection.

Manish Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thro… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:47823

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 912 of 2005

¶4

Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thro Secy. Madhyamik Edu. And 4 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Pt. S Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Yogita

¶5

Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.

¶7

While entertaining the writ petition, an interim order was granted vide order dated 08.02.2005, which is being quoted below:

¶8

"............................

¶9

The petitioner has been working as Lecturer (Sociology) in Shree Awadhesh Vidya Niketan Intermediate College Shitalmau Lalganj, District Pratapgarh since 1.11.2004. He has been discharging duties, functions and responsibilities of the post. The employer-employee relations are continuing.

¶10

Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to pay salary to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.2005 and continue to pay the same every month. This arrangement shall continue till a duly selected candidate by the concerned Selection Board joints the post held by the petitioner in the institution."

¶11

Controversy involved in the present writ petition was engaging attention of the Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Larger Bench in Writ Petition No.655 of 2014 titled 'Abhishek Tripathi v. State of U.P. though Secy. Secondary Education, Lko. & Ors. which was decided vide order dated 17.12.2015 with the direction that the Committee of Management has no right to make appointment, therefore all appointments were held to be illegal.

¶12

The matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8300 of 2016 titled 'Sanjay Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others' wherein by means of a judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court resolved that by enforcing special right fresh selection proceeding be initiated by giving weightage to the teachers appointed under Section 16-E(11) or on ad hoc basis.

¶13

In pursuance to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, special right proceedings were initiated and selections were made by inviting applications from candidates who were parties to the litigation. The result of the same has been declared and selection proceedings have been completed and report in this regard has also been submitted before Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶14

In view of the above, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the respondents that the teachers/ lecturers who are at present the TGTs and Lecturers would continue to be so employed till regularly selected candidates appoint and to the extent the financial benefits are given by the State Government to the institutions against appointments made in compliance with Section 11-E(11) of the Act, the same will also be given to provide succour to the TGTs/ Lecturers.

¶15

Order Date :- 21.7.2023 Adarsh K Singh

¶16

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

Manish Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thro Secy. Madhyamik Edu. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thro Secy. Madhyamik Edu. and 4 Ors.

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

Deepak Srivastava Vs National Insurance Comapany Ltd. Thru Chairman and 2 Ors.

Shiv Mohan Vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Rural Development Lko. and O

Shiv Mohan Vs District Rural Development Agency Raebareli

Rajesh Kumar Pandey Vs U.P.Co Operative Sugar Mill Federation and Rana Pratap Marg

Committee of Management Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Secondary Education Govt. of

Ram Nayan Yadav Vs State of U.P.through the Secy Secondary Education