C/M Kamta Singh Junior Balika Vidyalaya Thru. Its Manager Bhagwan Bux Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 1209 of 2026

¶3

C/M Kamta Singh Junior Balika Vidyalaya Thru. Its Manager Bhagwan Bux Singh

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sayyed Farooq Ahmad, Afzal Ahmad Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ravi Prakash Yadav

¶7

Court No. - 17

¶8

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and Shri Ravi Prakash Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3.

¶10

This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 22.11.2025, whereby permission for publication of advertisement has been refused. A further prayer of mandamus has been sought to direct the respondents to fill up the vacancies as per requisition letter dated 01.10.2020 sent by the petitioner, and also to grant permission for filling up the vacancies on contract basis on the state expenses till the recruitment process is finalized.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the College in question is being run by the petitioner, in which, one post of Head Master and four posts of Assistant Teachers are sanctioned. It is further submitted that Head Master and two Assistant Teachers have already retired and the request for filling up the posts was sent by the Committee of Management by requisition letter dated 01.10.2020, but the same was not processed by saying that it was not on the prescribed format. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred Writ-A No. 10441 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.11.2024, with the direction to the Basic

¶12

WRIA No. 1209 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

Education Officer, Ayodhya to take decision in the matter. It is also submitted that in place of initiating the process for selection for the post of Head Master and Assistant Teachers in the College in question, the representation moved in pursuance of the order of the writ Court has also wrongly been rejected by the respondentauthorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that out of two remaining Assistant Teachers, one of the Assistant Teacher is also going to retire in the next academic year. It is, thus, submitted that the indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3- Basic Education Officer, Ayodhya requests that liberty may be granted to the respondent-authorities to initiate the process for selection on the posts of one Head Master and two Assistant Teachers in the Institution in question.

¶16

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the petition, impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that Head Master and two Assistant Teachers have already retired and one Assistant Teacher is going to retire in the next academic year.

¶17

In view of above, Basic Education Officer, Ayodhya is directed to forward the requisition of the petitioner to respondent no. 2, who in turn, shall forward the matter to the Commission for completing the selection process in the College in question, in accordance with law expeditiously, considering the fact that only one Assistant Teacher will be left in the next academic year.

¶18

With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶19

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶20

May 11, 2026 VKS

¶21

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

C/M Kamta Singh Junior Balika Vidyalaya Thru. Its Manager Bhagwan Bux Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Kamta Singh Junior Balika Vidyalaya Thru. Its Manager Bhagwan Bux Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Riyajuddin Ansari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Ved Prakash Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Shiv Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Lko. and 2 Others

Mohd. Zilani @ Zilani and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neetu Pandey vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Govt. of India New Delhi and 4 Others

Sadik Ali and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another