Dhananjay Singh Vs State of Up. through Addl Chief Secretary Basic Education Goverment of U.P and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36934

Court No. - 20

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 74 of 2022

Petitioner :- Dhananjay Singh Respondent :- State Of Up. Through Addl Chief Secretary Basic Education Goverment Of U.P And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Kumar Singh,Ran Vijay Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Priyanshu Somwanshi, advocate, holding brief of Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ranvijay Singh, counsel for opposite party nos. 4 and 5 and Sri G.K. Singh, learned standing counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2.

¶7

Notice to opposite party no. 3 is hereby dispensed with.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that large number of similarly situated persons were not issued appointment letters in furtherance of the impugned Government order dated 5.3.2021 which has been challenged in large number of writ petitions. This Court by its judgment and order dated 21.9.2021 in Writ-A No.4871 (Neetu. Vs. State of U.P. and others), considered the validity of the said Government order and declared part of the said Government order to be ultra vires the 1981 Rules and unconstitutional and in violation of Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India. The relevant portion of the said judgment and order dated 21.9.2021 reads as under:-

¶9

"16. Adopting the reasoning as contained in the judgment of this Court in case of Sumit Vs. State (supra) and in case of Vipin Kumar Maurya Vs. State (supra), the Point No. 3 (1) of the impugned Government Order dated 4.12.2020 (Annexure No. 13) and Paragraph 2(2) of the

¶10

Government Order dated 05.03.2021 (Annexure No. 14) impugned herein are declared to be ultra vires the 1981 Rules and unconstitutional and in violation of Article 16(2).

¶11

17. Once the condition specified in Point No. 3 (1) of the impugned Government Order dated 4.12.2020 (Annexure No. 13) and Paragraph 2(2) of the Government Order dated 5.3.2021 (Annexure No. 14) impugned herein are declared to be ultra vires the 1981 Rules and unconstitutional and in violation of Article 16(2), I have no hesitation in holding that denial of appointment letter to the petitioner solely on the ground that domicile certificate issued to the petitioner was subsequent to the cut off date, cannot be accepted.

¶12

18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.06.2021 (Annexure No. 1) is set aside to the extent it relates to the petitioner. The Respondent No. 5, District Basic Education Officer, Pratapgarh is directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner in terms of his selection.

¶13

19. The prayer of the petitioner for payment of her salary from the date her name surfaced in the select list is rejected on the ground of ''no work no pay'.

¶14

20. It is clarified that the appointment letter, as directed above, shall be issued to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date the petitioner approaches the Respondent No. 5 and the petitioner shall also be entitled to her salary and other benefits after her actual joining.

¶15

21. Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated as certified copy of the order."

¶16

Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and the petitioner is also entitled for the same reliefs.

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Ran Vijay Singh for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 also could not dispute the same.

¶18

The writ petition is allowed . The impugned Government order dated 5.3.2021 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) has already been declared to be ultra vires and unconstitutional hence no such further declaration is required. The respondent No.5- District Basic Education Officer, Pratapgarh is directed to appoint the petitioner on the post in terms of his selection order dated 26.6.2021 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) in terms of his selection.

¶19

The decision of District Teachers Selection Committee, Pratapgarh dated 29.06.2021 contained as Annexure no. 1 is hereby quashed to the extent it relates to the petitioner.

¶20

The prayer of the petitioner for payment of his salary from the date his name surfaced in the select list is rejected on the ground of 'no work no pay'.

¶21

It is clarified that the petitioner shall also be entitled to his salary and other benefits after his actual joining and working.

¶22

Order Date :- 14.5.2024 Mayank

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dhananjay Singh v. State of Up. through Addl Chief Secretary Basic Education Goverment of U.P and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay Singh v. State of Up. through Addl Chief Secretary Basic Education Goverment of U.P and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Mahila Mahavidyalaya Thru Its Manager and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu.Civil Sectt.Lko.and Ors.

Mukhtar Husain Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy.Secondary Edu.Civil Sectt.Lko.andORS.

Neeraj Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Chhanga Lal Vs Cooperative Tribunal U.P. Thru Its Adhyaksh Lko.and Another

Krishna Shashi Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu. U.P. Lucknow and Ors.

Smt. Rampati and Another Vs the State of U.P.Throu.Its Prin.Secy.Cooperative Lko.and Ors.