Smt. Renu Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Renu Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Rule 5 of the U.P. Basic Educational Staff Rules, 1973 within three weeks with a certified copy of the order; the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within three months thereafter; no coercive action against the petitioner for four months or till the appeal is decided, whichever is earlier; however, the petitioner is not permitted to work in the Institution or draw salary.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should be entertained notwithstanding the alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate authority under Rule 5 of the U.P. Basic Educational Staff Rules, 1973 against the termination order dated 05.06.2025, and whether the petitioner should be protected from coercive action pending such appeal.

Court's answer

Without interfering with the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad, the petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an appeal under Rule 5 of the U.P. Basic Educational Staff Rules, 1973 within three weeks along with a certified copy of the order; if she does so, the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal within three months thereafter.

Ratio / Principle

For a period of four months or till the time taken in the appeal, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

Key takeaways

Clarification that the interim protection will not permit the petitioner to work in the Institution and she will not be able to get the salary.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition challenging termination of service of a teacher by order dated 05.06.2025 of the District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad, whereby her initial appointment was declared null & void, recovery of amounts received was directed, and criminal proceedings were ordered. A preliminary objection as to the alternative remedy of appeal under Rule 5 of the U.P. Basic Educational Staff Rules, 1973 was raised by the respondents and fairly conceded by the petitioner, who sought only protection from coercive action. The Court, without interfering with the impugned order, disposed of the petition permitting the petitioner to file the statutory appeal within three weeks, directing the Appellate Authority to decide it within three months, and restraining coercive action for four months or until decision in the appeal, whichever is earlier, while clarifying that the petitioner would neither work in the Institution nor draw salary during this period.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 17162 of 2025

Smt. Renu Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Hritudhwaj Pratap Kumar, Sr. Advocate	Sahi, Narendra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Suresh Kumar	Maurya
Court No.- 2

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Heard Sri. V.K. Singh learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri N.K. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 4 and Sri S.K. Maurya, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

The order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the respondent No.3/District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad by which the services of the petitioner has been terminated is under challenge. By the aforesaid order, the initial appointment of the petitioner has been declared as null & void and a direction was also given to recover the amount received by the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment and also imitate criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

Today when the matter is taken up, a preliminary objection has been raised by Sri S.K. Maurya, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 that against the aforesaid order, an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to file appeal before the appellate authority as provided under Rule 5 of U.P. Basic Educational Staff Rules, 1973.

This fact is also very fairly admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that the petitioner is ready and willing to approach the Appellate Authority challenging the aforesaid order but till the time decision be taken in the appeal, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

WRIA No. 17162 of 2025

2

In the facts and circumstances of the case and without interfering with the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the respondent No.3/District Basic Education Officer, Firozabad, the present petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file appeal as provided under Rule 5 of U.P. Basic Educational Staff Rules, 1973 within a period of three weeks from today along with certified copy of this order. In case, the petitioner does so, the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the aforesaid appeal within a period of three months thereafter.

For a period of four months or till the time taken in the appeal whichever is earlier, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner.

It is made clear that this order will not permit the petitioner to work in the Institution and the petitioner is not able to get the salary.

(Prakash Padia,J.)

November 17, 2025 saqlain

Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad