Dismissed

Smt. Seema Maurya v. Dist. Magistrate /Chairman Dist. Edu.Committee Barabanki and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2024WRIA/5876/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-selection for Shiksha Mitra posts. The court held that the petition was barred by laches, filed 19 years after the advertisement, and noted the abolition of such posts via GO dated 2nd June 2010 under the RTE Act.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.

Smt. Seema Maurya vs Dist. Magistrate /Chairman… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:51566

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5876 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Seema Maurya Respondent :- Dist. Magistrate /Chairman Dist. Edu.Committee Barabanki And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahesh Prasad,Samar Singh Rawat Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Uday Veer Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1, Dr. Uday Veer Singh learned counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3 while notice on behalf of opposite party No.4 has been accepted by Mr. Mohan Singh Advocate.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 24th August, 2022 whereby petitioner's grievance regarding finalization of selection of 571 posts of Shikshsa Mitra in pursuance of advertisement dated 5th January, 2005 has been rejected.

¶8

At the very outset learned counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3 submits that the petitioner is highly delayed by laches and in the meantime vide government order dated 2nd June, 2010, fresh appointments on the post of Shiksha Mitra has been done away with in view of Right to Education Act 2009. It is submitted that aforesaid order has not been challenged and petitioner's representation has also been rejected on the same ground.

¶9

Upon consideration of aforesaid submissions and perusal of material on record, it is quite evident that petition has been filed after 19 years of issuance of advertisement in the year 2005. There is no cogent explanation for petition being filed after 19 years. It also appears that in the meantime by means of government order dated 2nd June, 2010, copy of which is taken on record, fresh appointments of Shiksha Mitra have been done away with after advent of Right to Education Act 2005.

¶10

In view of aforesaid, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶11

Order Date :- 30.7.2024 prabhat

¶12

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

Smt. Seema Maurya v. Dist. Magistrate /Chairman Dist. Edu.Committee Barabanki and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Seema Maurya v. Dist. Magistrate /Chairman Dist. Edu.Committee Barabanki and 3 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

Vinod Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P through Secy.Higher Education

Murlidhar Vs the Director of Secondary Education Allahabad and 4 Others

Smt.Veena Srivastava Vs State Project Director D.P.E.P.Nishatganj and 3 Ors.

Smt Rukhsana Fatima Vs State of U.P. Thru Secretary Secondary Education and 6 Ors.

Smt. Seema Maurya Vs Dist. Magistrate /Chairman Dist. Edu.Committee Barabanki and 3 Others

Pankaj Sachan Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunication Min. of Communication and 2 Others