Ramesh Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Heard Mr. G. C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Raman Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.5, Mr. Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 and Mr. P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the State.

¶12

Present writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:-

¶13

"(1) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commending the opposite party no. 3 to made the correction/amendment in column no. 5 of Abhiyukti by deleting the words "Sri Kunj Bihari ke sewa nivratt se rikt pad ke prati and by substituting the same likewise other orders dated 03.11.2025 and 08.01.2026 "as rikt pad ke prati contained as annexure no. 1 to the effect that this writ petition.

¶14

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties no. 2 & 3 to make the correction in the order dated 03.11.2025 as prayed by the petitioner through application dated 30.12.2025 contained as annexure no. 22 which have been recommended through letter dated 09.01.2026 by the opposite party no. 4 as well as upon the letter no. 221-222/2025-26 dated 16.01.2026 submitted by the manager of the opposite party no. 6 contained as annexure no. 26 after hearing, to the concern parties."

¶15

Contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on the post which fell vacant

¶16

WRIA No. 1632 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

on retirement of Kunj Bihari in 1995 and once financial concurrence was not granted, the petitioner approached this Court by way of instituting WritA No.3680 of 2005 whereafter an order was passed on 25.5.2005 and in pursuant thereof, the petitioner has been paid salary. He added that when the Government Order dated 9.11.2023 was issued, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of instituting Writ-A No.8901 of 2024, wherein order dated 1.10.2024 was passed, which reads as under:-

¶19

"Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 4.

¶20

Issue notice to opposite party no. 5.

¶21

Connect and list alongwith Writ-A No. 8262 of 2024.

¶22

Since petitioner's case is similar to the case of petitioner in the said writ petition, it is directed by petitioner shall also be governed by the interim protection granted vide order dated 25.05.2005 in the aforesaid writ petition.

¶23

Pleadings shall be exchanged in the meantime."

¶24

He further argued that the petitioner is aggrieved with the part of the impugned order dated 3.11.2025, wherein in Column No.5, it has been mentioned as ' Kunj Bihari ke rikt pad ke prati. ', which is uncalled for. He added that proposal sent by the Committee of Management dated 25.9.2024 is evident that the same was with respect to the vacancy, which has arisen, after the termination of the services of Mr. Kafeel Khan, who in fact was appointed against the post which fell vacant on account of retirement of one Paras Nath Shukla, therefore, the matter narrated in the order dated 3.11.2025, in column no.5, is erroneous.

¶25

Adding his argument, he submitted that on the proposal of the Committee of Management dated 25.9.2024, the whole proceedings are instituted and one Umesh Kumar was appointed by way of transfer, in the institution, on the post which fell vacant, on retirement of Paras Nath Shukla and subsequently on termination of services of Mr. Kafeel Khan. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards the recommendation letter dated 26.6.2025 of District Inspector of Schools. He next submitted that in fact, the District Inspector of Schools, vide its letter dated 19.1.2026, has also recommended for correction

¶26

WRIA No. 1632 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

in the column 5 of the order dated 3.11.2025, but till date, no correction has been made, thus, the petitioner is aggrieved with the aforesaid observations made in the order dated 3.11.2025 as the same adversely affects the petitioner .

¶29

In addition, he argued that from the orders of the appointment in same mode and of the same date, which are appended as Annexure No.20 along with the writ petition, it is evident thereof that no name of any person/teacher is mentioned and only in the order dated 3.11.2025, the observations are made by mentioning name of Mr. Kunj Bihari, therefore, submission is that so far as the observations mentioned in cloumn 5 is concerned, the same may be quashed.

¶30

On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that in fact, the petitioner has no locus to maintain present writ petition as his services have been dispensed with, after the Government Order dated 29.1.2023. He further submitted that information mentioned in column no.5 has rightly been mentioned as Mr. Umesh Kumar has been appointed against the vacancy, which has arisen after the retirement of Mr. Kunj Bihari. He has also fortified his argument by stating that if no observation is made in column 5, in the other orders that will have no bearing on the validness of the order dated 3.11.2025. He next added that on a letter written by the Committee of Management on 1.11.2025, the order dated 19.1.2026 has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools.

¶31

He further submitted that after the proposal passed by the Committee of Management for appointment by way of transfer at the fag end, the letter was written by the Committee of Management for appointment by way of transfer of one Umesh Kumar, against the post which became vacant, on retirement of Kunj Bihari, thus, submission is that no interference is warranted.

¶32

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner has instituted present writ petition being aggrieved with mentioning of fact in column no.5, in the letter dated 3.11.2025, as it has been mentioned therein 'Kunj Bihari ke sevanivriti se rikt pad ke prati.', which as per the contention of the counsel for the

¶33

WRIA No. 1632 of 2026

¶34

4

¶35

petitioner, materially affects the appointment of the petitioner.

¶36

When this Court examines the matter in facts and law, it is evident that the Committee of Management started the proceedings of appointment by way of transfer, while passing a resolution on 25.9.2024, which is extracted in verbatim, hereinunder:-

¶37

" प्रधानाचायर् ने श्री उमेश कुमार स0अ0 (कला) श्री सीताराम िसह इण्टर कालेज गडौला जनपद हाथरस उ०प्र० का एकल स्थानान्तरण के सम्बन्ध में िदये गये प्राथर्ना पत्र िदनांक 01.08.2024 को सिमित के समक्ष पढ़कर सुनाया तथा बताया िक संस्था में स०अ० कला का एक भी अध्यापक उपलब्ध नहीं है। िजससे िशक्षण कायर् में बाधा उत्पन्न होती है। श्री कफील खां स0अ0 कला की सेवायें प्रदेश सरकार द्वारा िदनांक 09.11.2023 शासनादेश द्वारा समाप्त कर दी गयी है। इस िरक्त पद पर एकल स्थानान्तरण द्वारा भरने हेतु श्री उमेश कुमार को अनापत्र प्रमाण पत्र देने से िशक्षण कायर् में सुधार होगा। जो छात्रिहत और संस्थािहत में है। सिमित ने िवचारोंपरान्त छात्रिहत में उक्त िरक्त पद पर अनापित्त प्रमाण पत्र देने का िनणर्य सबसम्मित से पािरत िकया तथा प्रबन्धक महोदय को अग्रेत्तर कायर्वाही के िलए अिधकृत िकया।"

¶38

After the aforesaid proposal was passed, the matter proceeded and ultimately, recommendation was made by the District Inspectors of Schools, on 26.6.2025 and in furtherance thereof, the order dated 3.11.2025 was passed, whereby one Umesh Kumar Gupta was appointed in the respondent no.6 institute, by way of transfer.

¶39

The resolution itself is evident that the same was proposed after the termination of the services of Mr. Kafeel Khan, who was appointed against the post which fell vacant, after retirement of one Paras Nath Shukla whereas the post which became vacant after retirement of Kunj Bihari, the present petitioner was appointed in the year 2005 and he is getting salary after the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3680 of 2005.

¶40

Further once the order dated 9.11.2023 was passed, the petitioner has again instituted Writ-A No.8190 of 2024, wherein this Court has directed for payment of salary to the petitioner, as was granted in the case of Manoj Kumar Singh and others, in Writ-A No.8262 of 2024. This Court has also noticed that there is no reference given in the resolution including the recommendation of the District Inspector of Schools that Umesh Kumar Gupta was appointed by way of transfer against the post which became vacant after the retirement of Kunj Bihari rather the resolution says otherwise.

¶41

WRIA No. 1632 of 2026

¶42

5

¶43

This Court finds that after the resolution passed and the decision taken and the recommendation made by the District Basic Education Officer, the letter written by the Committee of Management, would have no bearing, on any action regarding the appointment of Umesh Kumar Gupta and that only will run in furtherance to the resolution of the Committee of Management, on the basis of which, the transfer has been recommended and, ultimately, the appointment has been made. This Court has also noticed in the other similar orders of transfer of the same day that there is no mentioning of the fact regarding the details that on whose retirement/death or resignation, the vacancy has arisen. Consequently, this Court finds that the entry made in column no.5 of the order dated 3.11.2025, is erroneous.

¶44

In this view of the matter, the respondent no.3/Additional Director, Secondary Education, U.P. Lucknow is directed to make necessary corrections in column no.5, as per the resolution dated 25.9.2024 and the recommendation made by the District Basic Education Officer dated 26.6.2025, within a period of three weeks, from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶45

It is clarified that this order shall not in any way effect the appointment/joining of Mr. Umesh Kumar, who has already joined in the institution.

¶46

With the aforesaid observations and directions, present writ petition is allowed .

¶47

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶48

March 11, 2026

¶49

Ram Murti

¶50

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramesh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vikas Dixit vs State Bank of India Nariman Point Mumbai Thru. Chairman

S.K. Kakkar vs Mukhya Karyapalak Adhikari U.P. Khadi Evam Gram Udyog Board Lko. and 2 Others

Narendra Kumar Dwivedi and 11 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Pandey and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Mukesh Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Manish Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another