Dismissed

Dev Mani Patel and 24 Others v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Department of Basic Education and 35 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2024SPLA/640/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench dismissed the special appeal by holding that the matter was squarely covered by a coordinate bench judgment (Manisha Sachan). Relying on the operative ratio of Kranti Singh regarding expired academic sessions, the court denied interference without examining the merits of the transfer grievance.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal is disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in Manisha Sachan and relating to Kranti Singh.

Dev Mani Patel and 24 Others vs State of U.P… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:149307-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 640 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Dev Mani Patel And 24 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary, Department Of Basic Education And 35 Others

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Shukla,Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- Archana Singh,C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶7

Present intra-court appeal is preferred by appellants-petitioners against the judgement and order dated 15.12.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ A No.10425 of 2023 (Jyotisana Pandey and others vs. State of U.P. and others).

¶8

At the very outset, Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 placed reliance on order dated 25.04.2024 passed in Special Appeal Defective No.241 of 2024 (Manisha Sachan and another vs. State of U.P. and others) passed by this Court, states that the aforesaid special appeal was disposed of in terms of judgment passed in Special Appeal no.171 of 2024 (Kranti Singh vs. State of U.P. and others). She submits that the present special appeal is squarely covered by the same judgment. For ready reference the order dated 25.04.2024 is reproduced as under:-

¶9

"(Order on Delay Condonation Application)

¶10

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners; Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the contestingrespondents.

¶11

2. Delay in filing of appeal is explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Delay Condonation Application is allowed. The appeal is treated to be filed within time and taken up on board for hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

(Order on Memo of Appeal)

¶13

3. Present intra-court appeal is preferred by the appellants-petitioners against the judgement and order dated 03.01.024, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.12721 of 2023 (Manish Sachan and 2 others versus State of U.P. and 8 others).

¶14

4. At the very outset, Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the matter is squarely covered by the Division Bench decisions' of this Court in Special Appeal No.171 of 2024 (Kranti Singh versus State of U.P. and 2 others) decided on 22.03.2024 and Special Appeal (D) No. 158 of 2024 (Kiran Vishwakarma and 26 others vs. State of UP and 2 others) decided on 14.03.2024. She further submitted that aforesaid judgement has also been followed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal (D) No.310 of 2024, (Jyoti Singh and 22 others vs. State of UP and another) decided on 22.04.2024.

¶15

5. Learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners states that while deciding the Special Appeal No.171 of 2024 filed by Kranti Singh, the Division Bench vide judgement and order dated 22.03.2024 had accorded leave that as and when the authority of State come up with a fresh transfer policy, it shall be open for the appellant to apply and her claim shall be dealt with as per law. He submits that the same leave may also be extended to the appellants-petitioners. In support of his submission, he has also placed reliance upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.1243 of 2022 (SK Nausad Rahamand and others versus Union of India and others), decided on 10.03.2022.

¶16

6. We find that the case in hand is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Kranti Singh (supra), wherein the Division Bench had refused to interfere in the appeal with following observations:-

¶17

"1. Petitioner sought inter-district transfer pursuant to a policy contained in the circular dated 8.6.2023. The transfer was merit based, and weightage was to be given under different heads. 10 marks were to be given, where the spouse was employed in Central Government or State Government, etc. The spouse of the appellant was employed in a university. 10 marks, although were initially given, but the authorities later came to the conclusion that such marks were not allowable, and consequently, the transfer order was not implemented. Aggrieved by such action, the appellant came to this Court, and the writ petition has been disposed of without entering into the merits of the contention raised.

¶18

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that similarly placed persons were granted benefit of 10 marks, and the action of authorities in not enforcing the transfer order is bad in law.

¶19

3. Ms. Archana Singh, counsel for the respondents, states that notice has been issued to the concerned District Basic Education Officer, and steps are being taken to cancel the benefit granted to other persons.

¶20

4. Be that as it may, we have perused the policy dated 8.6.2023, which provides for inter-district transfer during the academic session 2023-2024. The academic session 2023-2024 has already come to an end. We are of the view that no further examination of petitioner's grievance is warranted, as the policy itself has outlived its life.

¶21

5. It is provided that as and when the authority of State come up with a fresh transfer policy, it shall be open for the appellant to apply, and her claim shall be dealt with as per law. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, we do not find any occasion to interfere in the present appeal, which is accordingly consigned to records."

¶22

7. We are, therefore, in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Kranti Singh (supra).

¶23

8. Accordingly, the present special appeal stands disposed of in terms of the judgement passed in the case of Kranti Singh (supra)."

¶24

So far as the factual and legal controversy, the same could not be disputed by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶25

Considering the judgement and order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, we are with the agreement of the judgement and order dated 25.04.2024. Accordingly, the present special appeal stands disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgement dated 25.04.2024 passed in Manisha Sachan (supra).

¶26

Order Date :- 12.9.2024 A. Pandey

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dev Mani Patel and 24 Others v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Department of Basic Education and 35 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dev Mani Patel and 24 Others v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Department of Basic Education and 35 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Mishra vs State of Up and 3 Others

Mohammad Nadeem and 2 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Committee of Management District Cooperative Bank Limited and Another vs Ram Prakash and 3 Others

Akshay Kumar vs State of Up and 2 Others

Veerendra Singh vs Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Skill Development and Entreprenurship and 17 Others

Kamal Singh and 4 Others vs State of Up and 5 Others