Disposed

Premnath Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko.and Ors.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2024WRIC/17698/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions seeking redress for the petitioner being prevented from undergoing Special BTC training due to pending inquiries. The court directed the respondent expeditiously to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh representation within two weeks; respondent to decide within six weeks by reasoned order.

Premnath Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53097

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17698 of 2021

¶4

Petitioner :- Premnath Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko.And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Avadhesh Kumar Singh,Savita Jain,Vinay Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar

¶5

Alongwith

¶6

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1004014 of 2005

¶7

Petitioner :- Prem Nath Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Basic Education And 3 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Prakash Singh,Alok Kr. Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,V.K.Bajpai

¶8

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶9

Heard Ms. Savita Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶10

Both the aforesaid writ petitions are being disposed of by common order as they involve common issues.

¶11

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being fully eligible for training in Special BTC had applied for the same and was selected on the basis of marks obtained by him in High School, Intermediate and B.Ed. and his name found mention at Serial No. 14 of the select list of General Arts category. After his selection, petitioner was asked to undergo appear for counseling at District Institute of Education and Training, Faizabad and after counseling, he was given permission to undergo training on 03.08.2024.

¶12

It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that some complaints were made with regard to petitioner and an inquiry was instituted where by means of letter dated 29.10.2004 the petitioner was directed to appear before the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Faizabad with regard to some doubts in his marksheets and certificates submitted by him. It seems that no final order was passed in the said inquiry but the petitioner was restrained from pursuing the

¶13

said course and accordingly, filed Writ Petition No. 4014 (M/S) of 2005, seeking direction to opposite parties to allow him to complete his training in Special BTC Course. Subsequently, another writ petition has been filed seeking quashing the order cancelling his candidature for Special BTC training, 2004 by summoning original from the opposite parties.

¶14

After arguing the matter up to some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date neither has any cancellation order has been passed nor petitioner has been permitted to join the said training, despite the fact the petitioner has been litigating the said matter for the last nearly two decades and submits that grievance of the petitioner shall be redressed in case respondent no. 2 is directed to consider and decide his representation with expedition.

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection in case suitable directions are issued to respondent no. 2 to consider and decide petitioner's representation.

¶16

Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation with regard to his grievance before respondent no. 2 within two weeks from today and respondent no. 2 on receipt of such representation shall proceed to consider and decide the same expeditiously, say within six weeks thereafter by means of reasoned and speaking order and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

¶17

It is further provided that in case petitioner is communicated any order cancelling his candidature for Special BTC Training, then it shall be open for him to challenge the same before appropriate forum.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.8.2024 A. Verma

¶19

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Premnath Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premnath Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko.and Ors.

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 Sardar Motors Civil Lines Faizabad Throu Its Partner Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow

Anil Kumar Bajpai Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lko. and Others

Rajaram and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and Others

Sayeed Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 8 Others

M/S Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes U.P. Lko

Smt. Pusha Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies,U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others