Disposed

Smt. Akanksha Maurya v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024WRIA/9325/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged order cancelling her appointment as Officiating Principal, arguing respondent No.5 lacked essential B.Ed. qualification. Court heard arguments, noted matter requires detailed consideration, and issued notice to respondents for reply. As interim measure, petitioner allowed to continue in post pending next hearing.

What did the court decide?

As interim measure, operation of impugned order dated 10.06.2024 kept in abeyance; petitioner permitted to continue as Officiating Principal pending next date of listing.

Smt. Akanksha Maurya vs State of Up and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9325 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Akanksha Maurya Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhagwan Dutt Pandey,Kripa Shanker Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Ankit Kumar Rai,C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri B.D. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pradipta Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 and Shri Ankit Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶6

By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged validity of an order dated 10.06.2024 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gazipur cancelling the order dated 4.08.2023 whereby the petitioner's signatures were verified to enable her to work as Officiating Principal of Bisen Inter College, Basudeopur, Ghazipur and the respondent No.4 has been appointed as the Officiating Principal of the College.

¶7

The regularly appointed Principal of the College Dr. Parshuram Rai was transferred and relieved on 20.07.2023 and the post of Principal of the College became vacant. Amongst the six Assistant Teachers working in the College, nobody was eligible to be appointed on the post of Principal. The petitioner was appointed as the Officiating Principal of the College by means of order dated 4.8.2023 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. The respondent No.3 had challenged the petitioner's appointment by filing a writ petition No.16613 of 2023 which was disposed of by means of an order dated 18.10.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by granting liberty to the respondent No.4 to approach the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur by filing a representation and the District Inspector of Schools was directed to decide the same within a period of three months. The District Inspector of Schools has passed the impugned order dated 10.6.2024 in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 18.10.2023 passed by this Court.

¶8

It is mentioned in the impugned order that none of the Assistant Teachers working in the College were eligible to be appointed as the Officiating Principal of the College. The senior most Teacher had expressed his unwillingness to join as Officiating Principal. The respondent No.6, who is placed at serial No.2 in the seniority list has an experience of 7 years whereas the petitioner, who is placed at serial No.3 of the seniority list, does not have four years experience of working as

¶9

Assistant Teacher, which is one of the eligibility condition for being appointed on the post of Officiating Principal of the College.

¶10

Accordingly, District Inspector of Schools has appointed the respondent No.5 as Officiating Principal keeping in view his position in the seniority list.

¶11

What the District Inspector of Schools has not taken into consideration is that the respondent No.5 does not hold a degree of B.Ed., which is an essential eligibility condition for appointment on a post of Assistant Teacher. When a person who does not hold the essential eligibility condition for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher, his appointment as Officiating Principal by removing another teacher, who holds the requisite educational qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher as also for the post of Principal, as she holds degrees of M.A. & B.Ed., prima facie does not appear to be reasonable. When both the candidates lack eligibility conditions, prima facie, it appears that the preference should be given to the person who holds the requisite educational qualification.

¶12

The matter requires detailed consideration.

¶13

Issue notice to respondent No.4, returnable at an early date.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner shall take requisite steps in this regard within a period of one week.

¶15

The respondents may file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks.

¶16

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶17

List this case in week commencing 2.9.2024 .

¶18

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, as an interim measure, it is provided that till the next date of listing, operation and implementation of impugned order dated 10.06.2024 shall be kept in abeyance and the petitioner shall be permitted to continue to work as Officiating Principal of the College-Bisen Inter College, Basudeopur, Ghazipur.

¶19

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶20

Order Date :- 3.7.2024 -Amit K-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Akanksha Maurya v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Akanksha Maurya v. State of Up and 4 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

Similar cases

M/S Precious Hospitality and Leisure Pvt. Ltd. vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashutosh Pal vs Vinita Yadav, Examination Controller

Sabnam Saxena vs State of Up and 6 Others

Smt Shalini Vishvakarma vs Mukesh Vishvakarma

Devendra Singh vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Muzammil and Another vs Jogendra and Another