Arun Kumar Tiwari @ Arun Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 1516 of 2026

¶3

Arun Kumar Tiwari @ Arun Kumar

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Kumar Shukla, Yogesh Prajapati Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shailendra Singh Rajawat

¶7

Court No. - 18

¶8

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶9

As prayed, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the prayer clause by way of amendment, in the first line of the prayer clause(i) by putting the word "mandamus" in place of "certiorari", during the course of the day.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Brijendra Singh, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shailendra Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 and perused the record.

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed assailing the suspension order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Sultanpur.

¶12

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been suspended for his no fault, as it is not incumbent upon the petitioner to get the work done, as he is not the in-charge of the work concerned, therefore, the suspension order is unsustainable.

¶13

On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Singh Rajawat, learned counsel the respondent nos. 2 to 4 on the basis of instruction submitted that the petitioner was earlier instructed/appointed to conduct the work of construction as incharge, though fund was allocated in the month of April, 2025, but when the information came to the knowledge of the District Basic Education Officer that even after passing of six months, no work was got done, appointed another Teacher, as incharge, for construction, for which the petitioner had some objection, thereafter, some teacher of the nearby school

¶14

WRIA No. 1516 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

was appointed as incharge.

¶17

He submitted the petitioner for uncalled-for reasons, is insisting that the teacher from the same college be appointed as incharge of construction work, which is not under the domain of Headmaster.

¶18

He further argued that the petitioner being the Headmaster is creating hindrance in the work and only 40 days remains as to be the last date of completion of the construction work and the funds would be lapsed after forty days. He submitted that the petitioner has also not given description of the expenditure of the composite grand and for these reasons, the enquiry has been instituted against the petitioner and he has been put under suspension, as the charges are of such nature, which will lead to the major punishment.

¶19

Considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the petitioner is appointed as Headmaster in the school in question. The petitioner is not the in-charge of the construction work now.

¶20

This Court has noticed that from April, 2025 to October, 2025, the time period for which the petitioner was in-charge, perhaps no construction was done, though this is the matter of inquiry. This Court further noticed that two teachers were appointed, as incharge, back-to-back, whereas, on the request of the present petitioner, those were changed.

¶21

This Court has failed to understand that it is not the domain of the Principal, that who would be the incharge of construction work in basic school and therefore this Court prima facie finds that the petitioner should not have intervened in such matters.

¶22

After all, the petitioner is a teacher and the action of the petitioner is subject matter of inquiry. Stopping him from Teaching work, would affect the students.

¶23

Looking all these aspects of the matter, the suspension order is hereby stayed and the petitioner will be allowed to work, though no financial rights shall be vested with the petitioner, of any kind, till the final decision is taken by the disciplinary authority.

¶24

It is further provided that the petitioner shall allow to perform the incharge teacher, who is appointed for construction work and he will not make any

¶25

WRIA No. 1516 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

hindrance in the work of the same and if it is found that he is making further hindrance, same shall be intimated to this Court, on an affidavit.

¶28

The inquiry shall be concluded against the petitioner within a period of three months. The petitioner is directed to cooperate in the enquiry proceedings. Liberty is given to the disciplinary authority that if there is any deviation or non-cooperation of the petitioner in the enquiry, he may move an application for vacation of the interim order.

¶29

List/put up this matter on 20.02.2026, in the list of fresh cases. On the said date, the counsel for the District Basic Education Officer shall inform this Court, adversarial activities, if any, of the petitioner, in the construction work.

¶30

Since the enquiry has been instituted against the petitioner, therefore, the financial right shall be vested in other Headmaster or Teacher of the same school or block, as is deemed fit by the District Basic Education Officer.

¶31

The petitioner shall be posted in the nearest school, in the same block.

¶32

February 11, 2026

¶33

Mayank

¶34

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶35

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arun Kumar Tiwari @ Arun Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Tiwari @ Arun Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 3 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

Shraddha Saxena vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Sarwar Ali and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Kaushalendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Ramdeen vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Agriculture Education Research and 2 Others

C/M Shri Ganesh Sanskrit Pathshala Thru. President Dineshvar Prasad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 2 Others

Saraswati Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education Lko and 2 Others