Ashish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Education Deptt. Lko andORS.

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2025WRIA/3846/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC (Lucknow) set aside termination of Junior Clerk for lack of mandatory B.S.A. approval under Rule 21 of UP Basic Schools Rules 1984. Termination order by Committee of Management without prior written approval of District Basic Education Officer held vitiated. Writ petition allowed; respondents may pass fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Termination order dated 31.08.2018 set aside; consequences to follow; respondents at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law ¶¶27-¶30

Ashish Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Education Deptt. Lko andORS. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 3846 of 2020

Ashish Kumar Pandey

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Education Deptt. Lko Andors.

¶7

Deptt. Lko Andors. .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 4

¶9

HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

¶10

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Sri M.M. Asthana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 and Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

¶11

2. Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 files a supplementary counter affidavit, which has been filed in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 19.08.2025. The said supplementary counter affidavit is taken on record.

¶12

3. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit, a specific averment has been made that no approval was sought by the Committee of Management, nor was any granted by the office of the District Basic Education Officer on the termination order of the petitioner.

¶13

4. The matter has been heard at length on 19.08.2025. The relevant portion of the order dated 19.08.2025 is reproduced below :-

¶14

" 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶15

2. In pursuance of the order dated 30.07.2025, Sri Narayan Prasad Pandey, Principal of the institution is present before this Court.

¶16

3. Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 by Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, Advocate, which is taken on record.

¶17

WRIA No. 3846 of 2020

¶18

¶19

4. The respondent No.4 need not appear again unless specifically called for by this Court

¶20

5. The short question that arises in the instant petition is that the petitioner, who was working as a clerk, has been terminated vide order dated 31.08.2018, a copy of which is annexure-7 to the petition, by the Committee of Management. However, despite Rule 21 of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group 'D' Employees) Rules, 1984, providing that no clerk may be discharged, removed, or dispensed with from service, or reduced in rank, except with the prior approval in writing of the District Basic Education Officer, and a specific averment having been made in paragraph-22 of the writ petition that no approval to the said termination order has been granted by the District Basic Education Officer, Balrampur as such it is contended that the termination order is patently vitiated and there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to not allow the petitioner to work, the termination order having not been approved.

¶21

6. Even though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2, B.S.A., yet the aforesaid point has not been specifically adverted to i.e. as to whether any approval has been granted to the impugned termination order.

¶22

7. Upon the same being pointed out, learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted ten days' time to either seek complete instructions as to whether any approval was granted to the impugned order of termination or to file a short counter affidavit in this regard.

¶23

8. Considering that only a short question is involved in the matter, list this case on 02.09.2025 at 02:15 PM for further hearing. "

¶24

5. From a perusal of the aforesaid order and the averments made in paragraph-4 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the respondent No.2, it emerges that the termination order of the petitioner dated 31.08.2018, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, by which the services of the petitioner were terminated while working on the post of Junior Clerk, was never approved by the B.S.A., which is a sine qua non in terms of the Rules, 1984.

¶25

WRIA No. 3846 of 2020

¶26

¶27

6. Considering the aforesaid, the impugned termination order dated 31.08.2018, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, is set aside.

¶28

7. Consequences to follow.

¶29

8. However, it is open for the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶30

9. The writ petition stands disposed of .

¶31

September 2, 2025 cks/-

¶32

(Abdul Moin,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Education Deptt. Lko andORS.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Education Deptt. Lko andORS.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrika Tyagi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Autar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Lko. and 4 Others

Uma Shankar Trivedi and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Secondary. Education Govt. Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Edu. (Basic ) Lko. and 4 Others

Pradeep Kumar Shukla Vs U.P. Power Corporation Limited Lko. Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director and 3 Others

Dhani Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Co. Operative Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others