Priyanka Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2024WRIA/12445/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an interim order in a writ petition. The petitioner claims a right to contest for remaining vacant posts of Head of Department after a direct recruitment process. The court grants the respondent two weeks to explain the vacancies and the petitioner's eligibility.

What did the court decide?

Time granted to the respondent to file counter affidavit and explain vacancy.

Priyanka Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12445 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Priyanka Yadav

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Alina Masoodi,Chinmay Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

¶7

It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working on the post of Lecturer (Chemical Engineering) in Polytechnic Government College, Barabanki. It is stated that the aspect of promotion is covered by the provisions made by the AICTE known as the Uttar Pradesh Technical Education (Teaching) Service Rules, 2021. Rules 1990 which have subsequently been substituted by the Uttar Pradesh Technical Education (Teaching) Service Rules, 2021. It is stated that previously the appointment was to be made through the process of promotion from amongst the Senior most lecturer by holding of DPC but rules have now been substantially amended in the Rules of 2021 and the said appointment is to be made through 'Direct Recruitment'. It is in this regard, it is stated that by means of an order dated 20.05.2020, it was provided that the persons, who are working

¶8

on the post Lecturer may give their option whether they would like to be considered for appointment as Head of Department through promotion as provided in the previous Rules of 1999 or they would prefer appointment through 'Direct Recruitment'. It is stated that the petitioner had given his consent for being considered for promotion by the letter dated 21.05.2024. It has been submitted that ten posts of Head of Department was lying vacant which is evident from letter dated 28.06.2024 and on the said posts, the process of recruitment was conducted and the result was declared on 09.12.2024 where eight posts have been filled up. The grievance which has been made by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the petitioner has a right to be considered against the two remaining posts for Head of Department (Chemical Engineering) and consequently, has made a prayer for a suitable direction to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion within stipulated time period.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted time to seek instruction.

¶10

Accordingly, two weeks' time is granted to seek instructions/file short counter affidavit and inform this Court as to why two posts have been kept vacant despite the fact that the recruitment was made for all the ten posts and as to whether the petitioner can be consider against the remaining two posts.

¶11

Accordingly, list this case on 16.01.2025 amongst top ten

¶12

cases.

¶13

[ Alok Mathur,J. ]

¶14

Order Date :- 19.12.2024 KR

¶15

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

Priyanka Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Ors.

Lukman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Gaurav Mishra @ Prachand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Sandeep Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Shivam Gaur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Nirmla Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others