Dismissed¶24

Vashisht Dhar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2026WRIA/50676/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Grant-in-aid salary parity claim by B.P.Ed-qualified Assistant Teacher rejected; parity with B.Ed/L.T./Moallim-qualified teachers denied; Rule 4(1) U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978; NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualification for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001; Special Appeal No.258 of 2015 Nand Lal v. State of U.P. distinguished (Assistant Teacher (Games)); certiorari against order dated 07.07.2015; mandamus for regular salary and arrears from 2006; earlier Writ A No.22587 of 2014 order dated 21.04.2014; writ petition dismissed; Allahabad High Court; Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed; the challenge to the impugned order dated 07.07.2015 fails. ¶24

Vashisht Dhar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regular salary from 2006, and arrears of salary from 2006, at parity with the other Assistant Teachers appointed with him who were granted the grant-in-aid benefit. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

By dismissing the petition 'in view of the above', the Court accepted the respondents' stand that the petitioner's B.P.Ed qualification is not covered under Rule 4(1) of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, and that the Nand Lal decision (concerning selection to the post of Assistant Teacher (Games) under the NCTE Regulations, 2001) does not apply to the facts; the parity claim for grant-in-aid salary benefit was rejected.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed; the challenge to the impugned order dated 07.07.2015 fails.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) dismissed Writ - A No. 50676 of 2015 (Vashisht Dhar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others), decided March 25, 2026. The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher appointed pursuant to the Selection Committee meeting of 03.04.1999 (appointment approved by the District Basic Education Officer on 31.12.1999), sought a certiorari quashing the order dated 07.07.2015 passed by respondent no.1 and a mandamus for regular salary from 2006 with arrears, claiming parity with teachers holding B.Ed, L.T. and Moallim qualifications who were granted grant-in-aid benefits after the institution was brought under the grant-in-aid list in 2006. The petitioner's qualification was B.A., B.P.Ed. His earlier writ (Writ A No.22587 of 2014) had been disposed of on 21.04.2014 with a direction to the Secretary, Basic Education, to decide his representation, culminating in the impugned rejection. The Court, accepting the Standing Counsel's submission that B.P.Ed is not covered under Rule 4(1) of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, and that Special Appeal No.258 of 2015 (Nand Lal v. State of U.P.) — which concerned appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Games) by reference to the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualification for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 — was not applicable to the facts, held the writ petition devoid of merit and dismissed it.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 50676 of 2015

Vashisht Dhar Mishra

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Agnihotri Kumar Bishen	Tripathi, Anil Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Awadhesh Kumar,	C.S.C.
Court No.- 52

¶8

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶10

The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

¶11

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and to quash the impugned order dated 07.07.2015 passed by respondent no.1.

¶12

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give the petitioner the benefit of regular salary from 2006, from the date, the other Assistant Teachers appointed with the petitioner are getting that benefit.

¶13

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner from 2006 upto till date on the basis of the regular salary from which the petitioner is entitled from 2006."

¶14

Placing the brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed by the Selection Committee which met on 03.04.1999. The selection took place in the presence of the observer as sent by the District Basic Education Officer. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Basic Education Officer on 31.12.1999, after which the appointment letter was issued by the Committee of Management of Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel, Purva Madhyamik Vidyalay, Katari, Tilakpur, Basti, respondent no.4. The said institution was thereafter

¶15

WRIA No. 50676 of 2015

¶16

¶17

brought under grant in aid list in the year 2006. The name of petitioner was also sent along with name of other teaching and non teaching staff for getting the benefit of grant-in-aid. The teachers who were appointed along with the petitioner and held the qualification of B.Ed, L.T. and Moallim were also granted the benefit of grant-in-aid and, accordingly, the salary was paid. The petitioner was denied the benefit as he has education qualification of B.A., B.P.Ed, therefore, he filed Writ A No.22587 of 2014 (Vashisht Dhar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others), which was disposed of vide order dated 21.04.2014 whereby the Court directed the Secretary, Basic Education, to take appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner regarding payment of salary.

¶18

In compliance of the aforesaid order, the impugned order has been passed rejecting the application of the petitioner. The aforesaid order has been challenged on the following grounds:-

¶19

After coming of the institution in grant-in-aid list, the other teaching and non teaching staff were getting the benefit of grant-in-aid except the petitioner. The teachers who were appointed along with the petitioner and had the qualification of B.Ed, L.T. and Moallim were granted the benefit of grant-in-aid and salary was being paid accordingly. The petitioner has been wrongly denied the benefit of getting the proper salary on the presumption that he is a certificate holder of B.P.Ed. The petitioner claims parity with the other teachers who were having B.Ed, L.T. and Moallim Certificate for the benefit of being paid the salary. Therefore, the order impugned is arbitrary, illegal and bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, regarding entitlement of payment of salary, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement passed in Special Appeal No.258 of 2015 (Nand Lal vs. State of U.P.), as decided on 25.02.2020 .

¶20

Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner is claiming parity with the persons holding the qualification of B.Ed, L.T. and Moallim but the qualification of the petitioner is B.P.Ed, which is not covered under the Rule 4(1) of the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior

¶21

WRIA No. 50676 of 2015

¶22

¶23

High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, (in short 'Rules of 1978'). He further submits that the judgement as relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable in the facts of the present case as it refers to selection on the post of Assistant Teacher (Games), wherein relying upon the qualification for physical teachers as given under the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualification for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001, the petitioner therein has been treated as qualified for being appointed as Assistant Teachers (Games).

¶24

In view of the above, the writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶25

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶26

March 25, 2026 Rahul.

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vashisht Dhar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vashisht Dhar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheetal Birla vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shishpal Singh Gahlaut vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Archana Dubey vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bharat Bhushan vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Santwana Sen vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Vinita Kushwaha vs State of Up and 3 Others