Disposed

Menaka Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2024WRIA/2122/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought direction to the Second Respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation for appointment as Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) Sanskrit. The Court directed the respondent to decide the representation within six weeks without adjudging merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Director of Education to consider and decide the Petitioner's representation dated 07.02.2024 within six weeks from the date service of the certified copy of this order.

Menaka Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:23322

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2122 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Menaka Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Savita Jain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred for issuing direction to the respondent no. 2 i.e. Director of Education (Secondary), U.P Lucknow to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (LT Grade) Sanskrit in pursuance of the advertisement dated 27.09.2014.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being fully eligible and qualified, had participated in the selection in pursuance of the advertisement dated 27.09.2014. After the conclusion of the said selection, certain candidates had approached this Court by filing writ petitions in which the judgments and orders have been passed (Writ A No. 7523 of 2019 & Special Appeal No. 399 of 2018).

¶9

It is further submitted that the other candidates had also filed the writ petitions and the orders were passed in their favour, but the same are not available with the petitioner, but the last appointment, on the basis of selections of 2014 has been made in the year 2022.

¶10

It is further submitted that the petitioner thereafter, filed an application under R.T.I Act regarding her marks as well as the number of vacancies available. It has been replied by the Information Officer that the petitioner belonging to General category has secured 74.35% marks whereas the last candidate of General category who has secured 74.33% marks has been given appointment and also an information has been given that six vacancies are lying vacant.

¶11

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined her prayer to the extent that a direction may be issued to respondent no. 2 to take a decision on representation of the petitioner dated 07.02.2024 within a stipulated time frame, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 07.02.2024, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date certified copy of this order is served.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.3.2024 DiVYa

¶15

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

Menaka Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Menaka Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. U.P. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Keshav Puri Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Deptt. Lko. and Another

Akash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Arvind Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 5 Others

Ram Lalit Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and 3 Others

Shiv Kumar Trivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and 3 Others

Parashuram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Rural Development Lko. and 5 Others