Allahabad High Court
SHARAD KUMAR PANDEYversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The petition lacks merit and is dismissed because the petitioner’s services were not approved and the required documentary proof was not established.
Summary
The petitioner, Sharad Kumar Pandey, filed a writ petition seeking mandamus directing the District Basic Education Officer to issue his experience certificate, appointment letter, and salary as Headmaster. The petitioner claimed to have worked as an Assistant Teacher from September 2010 to June 2011 and again from July 2015, but the experience certificate was questioned for authenticity and for not indicating service in a recognized institution. The State argued that the petitioner’s initial appointment had never been approved and that no satisfactory documentary proof was produced. The Court granted the State time to verify the certificate and later held that the petitioner's services remained unapproved and the evidence insufficient. Consequently, the Court found the petition to lack merit and dismissed it. The dismissal was recorded on 24 September 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent authorities are legally bound to issue the experience certificate, appointment letter, and salary to the petitioner.
- Whether the experience certificate presented by the petitioner is authentic and sufficient for appointment as Headmaster.
- Whether the petitioner’s services as Assistant Teacher have been duly approved by the State.
- Whether the writ petition for mandamus is maintainable in the absence of approved service and proper documentation.
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- experience certificate
- appointment letter
- salary
- authenticity
- approval of services
- education officer
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 11893 of 2026
Sharad Kumar Pandey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aman Patel, Neeraj Singh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the State.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and
directing the respondent authorities i.e. District Basic Education Officer (Respondent
no.3)/2 to release experience certificate after thorough verification from the
Committee of Management and also looking the relevant documents etc.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and
directing the respondent authorities to issue appointment letters after verification of
the Experience Certificate on the Post of the Headmaster in the institution were
portioned has been allotted.
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and
directing the respondent authorities to release the payment salary etc to the petitioner
as admissible under law.
IV. Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of Petitioner as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
V. Award the cost of petition to the Petitioner."
3. On 07.08.2026, the following order was passed:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the
WRIA No. 11893 of 2026
2
State-respondents.
2. The writ petition has been filed with direction to respondent authorities to release
the experience certificate after thorough verification from the concerned Committee of
Management.
3. Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel emphasizing the page 93 of the writ
petition, submits that experience certificate shows that petitioner has worked from the
period of 16.9.2010 to 30.6.2011. He further submitted that another date i.e. 13.7.1985
has been mentioned in hand writing on the aforesaid document, therefore, the
authenticity of document is required to be verified.
4. Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted ten days'
time to obtain instructions in this regard.
5. Put up this case as fresh on 19.8.2026."
4. On 19.08.2026, the following order was passed:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. On the basis of instructions, Dr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State submits that there is no question of issuing experience
certificate as the petitioner's services have not been approved till date. He requests for
two week's time to bring the same on record by means of an affidavit.
3. Put up this case, as fresh, on 07.09.2026.
4. In the meantime, learned counsel for the petitioner may also file an affidavit
annexing the entire documents regarding his appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher."
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it has been stated
that the petitioner has placed the experience certificate showing that he
has worked as Assistant Teacher in the institution in question from
16.09.2010 to 30.06.2011, thereafter, from 03.07.2015 onward. The
aforesaid experience certificate does not mention that the petitioner has
worked in any recognized institution. It has also been submitted by
WRIA No. 11893 of 2026
3
learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner's initial appointment as
Assistant Teacher has not been approved. He further submits that learned
counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to place on record any
documentary proof in this regard.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
7. In view of the aforesaid submissions as advanced by learned counsel
for the parties, the present petition lacks merit and is dismissed,
accordingly.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
September 24, 2026
K.N.
Digitally signed by :-
KALP NATH SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…