Allowed

Meera Srivastava and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2025WRIA/5720/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant teachers and a Shiksha Mitra complained of sexual harassment by the school Headmaster; a non-compliant committee investigated and the complaint was closed. The court held that complaints forwarded via Mahila Ayog required a Section 4 Act, 2013 committee, quashed the closure order and directed constitution of a proper committee within four weeks to inquire afresh.

What the court decided

AI extract

Meera Srivastava and 5 Others Vs State of U.P… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41325

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5720 of 2024 Petitioner :- Meera Srivastava And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shakeel Ahmad Jamal,Amrendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek,Anand Dubey,Uday Veer Singh,Utkarsh Misra

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri G. K, Singh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1, Dr Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 & 3 and Shri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.

¶6

Under challenge is order dated 02.01.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, whereby the inquiry into sexual harassment complaint of the petitioners has been closed on the basis of report dated 19.11.2022. Further prayer is for constitution of an internal complaint committee on sexual harassment complaint of the petitioners and other female employees and girl students against respondent no. 4 in terms of mandate of Section 4(2) of Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Protection and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2013).

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners no. 1 to 5 were working as Assistant Teacher in Composite School - Kapoorpur, Block Jhanjhari, District Gonda and petitioner no. 6 is a Shiksha Mitra in the same school who submitted complaints pertaining to sexual harassment by respondent no. 4 who was working as Headmaster of the said institution. Complaints had also been submitted to Mahila Ayog which has sent the said complaint to District Magistrate who in turn sent it to District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gonda. The committee was constituted as per details given in paragraph 7 of

¶8

the counter affidavit filed by respondents no. 2 and 3. The said committee submitted its report dated 19.11.2022 and on the basis of the same, the order impugned has been passed whereby it has been indicated that in the school there is lack of coordination amongst staff with the result that education is being hampered. Further respondent no. 4 was attached for the time being to some other institution.

¶9

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the committee which has submitted its report dated 19.11.2022 is not a committee as is required to be constituted under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act, 2013 and consequently any report that has been submitted by an improperly constituted committee and on the basis of the same, the order impugned has been passed, cannot he countenanced in the eyes of laws and accordingly merits to be quashed on this ground alone.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that a perusal of report more particularly paragraphs 2, 4, 5 and 12 clearly indicate serious allegations that had been levelled against the respondent no. 4.

¶11

Dr Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 & 3 fairly submits that the committee which has been constituted as indicated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit is not in consonance with Section 4 of the Act 2013.

¶12

On the other hand, Shri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, states that the petitioners had submitted various complaints but initially in the complaint that had been submitted by the petitioners, there is no allegation so as to constitute an offence under the provisions of the Act, 2013 to have led the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari to have constituted a committee as provided under Act, 2013 consequently the

¶13

report, as submitted by a committee, which has not been constituted under the provisions of the Act, 2013, may not indicate any infirmity on the part of the authorities.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶15

From perusal of the record it emerges that various complaints were submitted by the petitioners against respondent no. 4 which in fact have been indicated in the report dated 19.11.2022. Prima facie, perusal of said complaints indicate that the committee, as provided under provisions of Act, 2013 should have been formed to look into the said complaints.

¶16

Dr Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 & 3 has fairly admitted that the committee which has been constituted by the BSA does not conform to Section 4 of the Act, 2013 rather it was an local committee which had been formed.

¶17

Once from a perusal of the complaint that had been submitted by the petitioners and as had been forwarded by the Mahila Ayog as specifically stated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3, various allegations of sexual harassment emerge consequently it was in the fitness of things that the committee, as provided under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, 2013, should have been formed and which should have investigated and looked into the said complaints.

¶18

So far as the arguments of Shri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 that in the initial complaint that had been submitted by the petitioners, no such allegations which could have required formation of committee under Section 4 of the Act, 2013 was made out, the said arguments are

¶19

found to be patently misconceived in as much as the respondents have not acted upon the initial complaints that had been submitted by petitioners, rather as per specific averment made in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents no. 2 and 3 it was the complaints that had been submitted to Mahila Ayog and in turn Mahila Ayog had submitted it to District Magistrate and in turn District Magistrate sent it to District Basic Shiksha Adhikari that the said committee was formed. Thus once the complaint as submitted by the petitioners were sent to the Mahila Ayog and thereafter the respondents decided to form a committee and from the report dated 19.11.2022 also it emerges that there are prima facie certain serious charges against respondent no. 4 consequently, as indicated above, the committee as provided under section 4 of the Act 2013 should have been formed. Thus, the argument of Shri Dubey is rejected.

¶20

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed . The order impugned dated 02.01.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, is quashed.

¶21

The respondent are directed to form a committee as provided under the provisions of Act 2013 and thereafter to look in to the complaints of the petitioners as had been forwarded by Mahila Ayog. Let the committee be formed within a period of four weeks form the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The committee shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 18.7.2025 J. K. Dinkar

¶23

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

Meera Srivastava and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Meera Srivastava and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prem Narayan Jha Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Min. of Communication and 2 Others

Devendra Kumar Mittal Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Abdul Aziz Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication Govt. of India New Delhi and 2 Others

Smt. Rekha Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 6 Others

Banshidhar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Rajendra Kumar Agarwal and 28 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others