Disposed

Praveen Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2025SPLA/281/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal No. 281 of 2025 (SPLA 281/2025); Praveen Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; validity of clerk appointment; direct recruitment versus promotion; SC 21% and ST 2% reservation inapplicable where cadre is below five posts; Heera Lal v. State of U.P., 2011 (29) LCD 1 (Full Bench); prior approval before appointment; parity with Manish Tripathi; notice to o

What did the court decide?

Notice to be issued to opposite party no.4; matter to be listed after service of notice; supplementary affidavit taken on record.

Praveen Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 281 of 2025

Praveen Kumar Shukla

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Vijai Shankar Tripathi, Jaideep Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 1

¶9

HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶10

Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

Shri Tushar Verma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has instructions that there were four posts of clerk at the relevant time when the petitioner claims to have been selected against one of them, out of which, two were for direct recruitment and two for promotion. All the posts are filled up, but one of the posts is occupied by the petitioner, who was not validly appointed, although he admits the fact that the post against which he claims to have been selected was a direct recruitment post.

¶13

In view of the statement, we find that out of the three reasons given in the impugned order, one that the post should have been filled by promotion, appears to be incorrect; the second reason that the reservation was not followed also appears to be incorrect, as the total number of posts in the cadre being four i.e. less than five reservation for SC which is 21% and ST 2% would not apply in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Heera Lal vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2011 (29) LCD 1 . The only other reason which requires consideration is as to whether prior approval

¶14

SPLA No. 281 of 2025

¶15

¶16

was obtained before appointment of the petitioner or not. In this regard, it is said that in the same facts, similar writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge, but in his case a different decision has been taken. The case of Manish Tripathi, who is being paid salary treating his appointment to be valid is similar to the petitioner's case.

¶17

Let notice be issued to the opposite party no.4.

¶18

List after service of notice.

¶19

September 10, 2025 Mahesh

¶20

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶21

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

Praveen Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education 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

Shashank Sachan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko and 3 Others

Rakesh Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Hari Govind Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

State of U P Thr.Prin.Secy.Forest Inre 1060 S/S 2010 Vs Rajmani Dubey S/O Late Sriram Dubey and 14 Ors.

Distt. Basic Education Officer Distt. Shravasti and Another Vs Poonam Mishra and 37 Others

M/S Scooters India Ltd. Thru Chairman and M.D. Lucknow Vs Rajendra Kumar Jain and Anr.