Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SAPANA VARSHNEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The petition is dismissed because the petitioner failed to file the requisite application before the authorities as required by the Supreme Court judgment.

Summary

The petitioner, Sapana Varshney, filed a writ petition seeking appointment as an Assistant Teacher (Maths) in a senior basic school in Aligarh district, based on a Government Order dated 11 July 2013 for 29,334 teacher posts. The High Court noted that the matter had been decided by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Neeraj Kumar Pandey, which required the petitioner to first file an application with the concerned authorities before approaching the court. The petitioner had not filed such an application, and counsel for the petitioner was absent, indicating a loss of interest. Consequently, the Court held that the petition could not proceed. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment as Assistant Teacher without first filing an application before the concerned authorities as mandated by Supreme Court precedent.
  • Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the absence of compliance with the procedural requirement.

Subjects

  • appointment
  • assistant teacher
  • senior basic school
  • writ petition
  • procedural requirement
  • Supreme Court precedent
  • Uttar Pradesh
  • government order

Judgment

                                                 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                                                                WRIT - A No. - 11309 of 2016

                                    Sapana Varshney
                                                                                                       .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                           Versus
                                    State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                                                                     .....Respondent(s)

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)          :   Mahendra Singh
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)          :   C.S.C., Hari Narayan Singh, Yogendra Singh
                                                                           Bohra

                                    Court No. - 52
                                                      HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

                                    List revised. None appears on behalf of the petitioner or respondent nos.3
                                    and 4. Mr. Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel, is present.

                                    Heard and perused the record.

                                    Record reveals that the writ petition has been filed with the prayer to direct
                                    the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner as Assistant Teacher
                                    (Maths) in a senior basic school run by the Board of Basic Education in
                                    District Aligarh, with a further prayer to permit the petitioner to function as
                                    Assistant Teacher in a senior basic school in District Aligarh and to pay her
                                    regular monthly salary on the said post.

                                    The record shows that the matter pertains to the selections made pursuant to
                                    the Government Order dated 11.07.2013 for 29,334 posts of Assistant
                                    Teachers for Science and Maths.

                                    Learned Standing Counsel informs that the matter has travelled up to the
                                    Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein orders have been passed in the case of
                                    State of U.P. vs. Neeraj Kumar Pandey and Others (Special Leave
                                    Petition (C) No. Nil of 2025 (Diary No. 18516 of 2019)), decided on
                                    29.01.2025. Accordingly, in view of paragraphs 13 to 16 of the aforesaid
                                    judgement, the petitioner ought to have filed an application before the
                                    concerned authorities. The non-appearance of counsel shows that as nothing
                                    survives, he has lost interest.

                                    In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.

                                    September 29, 2026
                                    Rahul.
                                                                                       (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)




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

Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.