Dismissed

Subhash Chand v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2024WRIA/1667/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The titled petition sought quashing of an opposite party's appointment as Assistant Teacher alleging impersonation fraud and directing the State to consider the petitioner's appointment. The Court held that no cause of action accrued as the vacant post from 2008 would not automatically revive after 13 years due to changed qualifications. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.

Subhash Chand vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:19467

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1667 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Subhash Chand

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kumar Ayush,Ran Vijay Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1, 3 & 4, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Kumar Ayush, learned counsel for opposite party no.5. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite party no.7 stand dispensed with.

¶8

Petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing appointment of opposite party no.7 on the post of Assistant Teacher/Head Master of the Primary School concerned. A further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to consider petitioner's appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary School) after necessary training has also been sought.

¶9

Mr. Kumar Ayush, learned counsel for opposite party no.5 has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition on ground that in pursuance of advertisement issued for a vacancy for the year 2008, petitioner had also applied, whereafter opposite party no.7 has been selected for training for the B.T.C. Course whereafter upon successful completion of the same, opposite party no.7 was appointed as Assistant Teacher. It is submitted that subsequently it came to knowledge that opposite party no.7 had obtained appointment on the basis of fraud impersonating petitioner for which an S.T.F. enquiry was concluded and a departmental enquiry against opposite party no.7 is ongoing. It is therefore

¶10

submitted that petitioner would not derive any benefit from aforesaid circumstances since he has not even completed his training.

¶11

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that now even if the services of opposite party no.7 are terminated, it will not automatically result in benefit being granted to petitioner since in the intervening period, the qualifications required for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher has undergone a change in pursuance of directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and for which even otherwise, petitioner would be ineligible. It is also submitted that if appointment of opposite party no.7 is cancelled, it would create a new vacancy which will be required to be notified and it will not automatically relate to a vacancy for the year 2008 in which petitioner had applied.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioner however refuting the same has submitted that once prima facie fraud of impersonation has been found against opposite party no.7, it automatically means that petitioner has been deprived of his substantive benefit of training under the B.T.C. Course and therefore he has a substantive right to be sent for training and upon successful completion of same, for appointment in lieu thereof. It is submitted that opposite parties are only protecting the illegality perpetuated by opposite party no.7.

¶13

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted that advertisement was issued in year 2008 for the B.T.C. training and subsequent appointment upon successful completion of the same. It has been submitted that during the intervening period, the qualifications required for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher has undergone a change in

¶14

view of directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. In considered opinion of this Court, at present no cause of action accrues to petitioner until and unless the appointment of opposite party no.7 is found to be fraudulent and is cancelled. Even thereafter, petitioner would not have any automatic right for being considered for the B.T.C. training in view of the intervening period of almost 13 years since termination of services of opposite party no.7, if any, would not automatically revive the vacancy of year 2008, which may require to be freshly advertised, particularly in view of changed qualifications required for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher.

¶15

In view of aforesaid, at this stage this Court finds the petitioner does not have any right to be sent for the BTC training as has been sought.

¶16

Considering aforesaid facts, the petition is dismissed . The parties to bear their own costs.

¶17

Order Date :- 4.3.2024 kvg/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Subhash Chand v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chand v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 6 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar and 24 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. (Secondary Education), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 7 Others

Ankit Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, U.P. Sectt. Lucknow and 4 Others

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

Praveen Kumar Saxena and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dairy Development Lko. and 3 Others

Roop Narayan Vs Field General Manager Indian Bank Hazratganj Lko. and Another

Nasreen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others