Disposed

Abhishek Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2024WRIA/95/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant Teacher appointment: petitioner selected via December 2016 advertisement and issued May 2018 appointment letter; selection earlier quashed but special appeal allowed. Court held petitioner has primacy for joining and directed the District Basic Education Officer to consider and decide his representation within one week.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file representation before District Basic Education Officer, Barabanki, to be decided within one week considering petitioner's primacy.

Abhishek Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1433

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 95 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Edu. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Asit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh,Uday Veer Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 and Mr. Ranvijay Singh learned counsel for opposite party No.3 and Dr. Uday Veer Singh learned counsel for opposite party No.4.

¶7

Petition has been filed seeking quashing of the advertisement dated 2nd January, 2024 only to the extent it includes one post of Assistant Teacher in district Barabanki where petitioner claimes entitlement to join in pursuance of appointment order dated 2nd May, 2018. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to permit petitioner to submit joining on the aforesaid post in pursuance of advertisement dated 20th December, 2016 has also been sought with a direction for accepting petitioner's joining in terms of appointment order dated 2nd May, 2018.

¶8

It has been submitted that earlier an advertisement was issued on 20th December, 2016 for recruitment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the State. Petitioner applied for the same and was selected whereafter appointment order dated 2nd May, 2018 was also issued and allocating a school at Block Suratganj in district Barabanki. It is submitted that however in the meantime, the aforesaid selection was challenged in writ petition No. 11375 (S/S) of 2018, Ram Janak Maurya and others versus State of U.P. and the entire selection process was quashed but the special appeal No. 613 of 2018 against the aforesaid judgment was thereafter allowed on 31st October, 2023 whereafter a fresh schedule for counselling has been issued by means of impugned notice dated 2nd January, 2019.

¶9

It is submitted that once the petitioner had already been selected and issued appointment letter while allocating a school to him, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have first consider petitioner's case for joining prior to including the aforesaid school in the counselling process.

¶10

Learned counsel for opposite parties however do not have any instructions in this matter but do not dispute the

¶11

appointment letter dated 2nd May, 2018 annexed as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition. They also do not dispute the factual aspects pertaining to filing of writ petition and orders passed in special appeal.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is quite evident that petitioner was earlier selected in pursuance of the advertisement dated 20th December, 2016 and appointment letter dated 2nd May, 2018 was also issued in his favour.

¶13

In view of aforesaid, petitioner naturally would have a primacy over all other candidates for appointment and joining in the school as indicated in the order dated 2nd May, 2018.

¶14

For the said purpose, petitioner is granted liberty to file a representation before opposite party No.4 i.e. District Basic Education Officer, District Barabanki. In case such a representation is filed, the same shall be considered and decided keeping in view the discussion made herein above within period of one week from the date a copy of this order is produced before the said authority.

¶15

Learned counsel for opposite parties shall also inform the concerned authority with regard to passing of this order since counselling is to be completed today itself.

¶16

In view of aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.1.2024 prabhat

¶18

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

Abhishek Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Shanker Sonker and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Mohammad Ashfaq Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Smita Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Umesh Kumar Singh vs Union of India Rep. by Secy. to Govt. Ministry of Agri. and Farmers Welfare New Delhi and 4 Others

Pankaj Gautam and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education and 3 Others

Pradeep Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 2 Others