Disposed¶17

Arvind Kumar v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 May 2026WRIA/7727/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ-A No. 7727 of 2024; Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 others; Allahabad High Court; Shamshery, J.; grant-in-aid granted 2016; petitioner's name absent from 2016 inspection list; Shiksha Nideshak Madhyamik order dated 16.4.2024; report dated 8.4.2024 of Zila Vidhyalaya Nirikshan, Varanasi; non-consideration of pre-existing report; fresh order directed; impugned order set aside only to that extent; leave without salary plea raised by respondents; counter affidavit did not deny report; natural justice/fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: fresh order to be passed by the authority after taking note of the report dated 8.4.2024 of the Zila Vidhyalaya Nirikshan, Varanasi; impugned order dated 16.4.2024 set aside only to the extent of non-consideration of that report. ¶17

Arvind Kumar Vs State of Up and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 7727 of 2024

Arvind Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of Up And 3 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Vinod Kumar Singh .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 32

¶9

HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

¶10

Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned A.C.S.C. for the respondent.

¶11

The grounds mentioned in the impugned order 16.4.2024 on basis of record available before Shiksha Nideshak Madhayamik cannot be interfered that since petitioner's name was not recorded in the list prepared on inspection in the year 2016 when concerned institution was granted grant in aid. However, since Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a report dated 8.4.2024 of Zila Vidhyalaya Nirikshan, Varanasi sent to Shiksha Nideshak that impugned order can be reviewed though, it is not on record whether said report was available when impugned order was passed as it was prior to it.

¶12

In the counter affidavit said report has not been denied. Though there is an argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that said report also not favours the petitioner as no record is available that at relevant time petitioner was on leave without salary.

¶13

Be that it may be, since there is a report which was in existence before the impugned order is passed, therefore, it was also required to be considered.

¶14