Disposed

Rubeena Tabassum v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2024WRIA/10212/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in Writ Petition No. 10212 of 2024, heard by the Allahabad High Court, directed the District Basic Education Officer, Ballia, to decide the petitioner’s representation within ten days. The court restrained coercive action till the order is passed.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no.2 to decide the petitioner’s representation within ten days and restrained coercive action till then.

Rubeena Tabassum vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114540

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10212 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rubeena Tabassum Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Archit Mandhyan,Rishabh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel representing respondent nos.2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of the State-respondent.

¶7

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that no consent whatsoever has been filed by the petitioner as per guideline dated 26.8.2023, copy of which is appended as Annexure-6 to the present writ petition. It is further argued that due to family problems, she submitted an affidavit dated 28.8.2023 along with a letter, which was received in the office of District Basic Education Officer, Ballia on 29.8.2023, copy of which is appended as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. It is further argued that on the representation made by the petitioner, no decision has been taken and on the other hand, by the order dated 10.6.2024, passed by District Basic Education Officer, Ballia, petitioner was asked to join on her transferred institution otherwise disciplinary proceeding will be initiated against her. It is further argued that order dated 10.6.2024 passed by respondent no.2 is in violation of Clause 14(6) of the Government Order dated 20.1.2023.

¶8

In the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice, present petition is disposed of finally directing the respondent no.2 to pass an appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner, as stated above, within a period of ten days from today.

¶9

It is made clear that respondent no.2 is to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law and without influence by the observations made by this Court in the present petition.

¶10

Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3 will inform respondent nos.2 and 3 regarding this order in writing within 24 hours.

¶11

Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶12

Order Date :- 18.7.2024

¶13

m.a.

¶14

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AYYUB High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rubeena Tabassum v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rubeena Tabassum v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Meenu Gautam vs State of Up and 4 Others

Smt Anjana Verma vs State of Up and 2 Others

Smt Anjali Srivastava vs State of Up and 5 Others

Smt Sony vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Farhanaaz vs State of Up and 2 Others

Isteyak Khan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others