Disposed

Dev Kumar Verm and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2024WRIA/754/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

L.T. Grade teacher appointees from a 2014 revised select list sought seniority credit as if included in the original 2010 select list. The court disposed of the writ petition directing the Director of Secondary Education to consider their grievance and pass a speaking order within three months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dev Kumar Verm and Another vs State of U.P. Thru… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9785

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 754 of 2024 Petitioner :- Dev Kumar Verm And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Madhav Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned State counsel for opposite parties.

¶6

The only prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that their grievance be considered by the Director of Secondary Education, respondent no. 2.

¶7

It is stated that the respondents has issued advertisement no.01 of 2009 calling the applications from the eligible candidates for the appointment of the L.T. Grade Teachers in different subjects including the subject Social Science. In pursuance thereto all the petitioners applied and have appeared in the written test as well as in the interview.

¶8

The select list was declared on 14.09.2010 but in the said list, the petitioners' name were not included due to the fact that their correct answer were not properly verified. Later large number of the writ petitions were filed and the Board was directed to reevaluate the answer script and revisit the result. Pursuant thereto, the Board has re-evaluated the marks of the candidates and a fresh select list was issued on 12.05.2014. In the list, the petitioners' name find place and they have been appointed.

¶9

Now the grievance of the petitioners is that if their names be included in the first select list, they would have been much senior to the large number of candidates.

¶10

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by issuing direction upon respondent no. 2 to consider the grievance of the petitioners and pass speaking order expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶12

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶13

Order Date : - 2.2.2024 Subodh/-

¶14

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

Dev Kumar Verm and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dev Kumar Verm and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chhaya Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Higher Education Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ajay Public School Samiti, Sultanpur Thru. Manager Ms. Renu Jaiswal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Institutional Finance, Lucknow and Others

Mohd. Haroon Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Minority Welfare, Lucknow and Others

Abhay Malik Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Co-Operative Lko.and Ors.

Nand Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 3 Others

Dev Kumar Verm and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others