Allahabad High Court
TEJ KUMARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The Court declined to grant mandamus for renewal but directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation and the respondent to decide it within two months.
Summary
The petitioner, Tej Kumari, a former part‑time instructor at a primary school, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the District Basic Education Officer to renew her appointment and to decide a representation dated 01‑08‑2026. She alleged that her services were not renewed after the 2023‑24 term and that no reason was given despite a representation to the authorities. The respondent argued that the petition was filed after an inordinate delay of nearly two years, rendering the relief untenable, but suggested that a fresh representation could be considered. The Court, without addressing the merits, declined to grant the mandamus for renewal due to the delay, but, with the parties' consent, ordered that the petitioner file a fresh representation within three weeks and that the respondent decide it within two months, issuing a reasoned order. The direction was intended to ensure compliance with law and provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing renewal of a part‑time instructor's appointment after a two‑year delay.
- Whether the petition is maintainable despite the delay in filing.
- Whether the court can direct the respondent to consider a fresh representation and decide it within a specified time.
Subjects
- mandamus
- renewal
- part‑time instructor
- representation
- delay
- administrative law
- public service
- education
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 13516 of 2026
Tej Kumari
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gambhir Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nagendra Kumar
Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA and learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent no.3 to consider the renewal of the petitioner on the post of part
time instructor at Primary School, Nagla, Khakam, Panwasa, District-Sambhal.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent no.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 01.08.2026.
(iii) Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner worked
as a part time instructor in a Primary School from 2013 till 2023-
2024, after which her services were not renewed, and she has not
been informed as to why her services were not renewed. The
petitioner moved a representation before the authorities concerned to
look into her grievance, but nothing has been done till date.
Therefore, a direction may be issued to the authorities concerned to
decide the claim of the petitioner within a stipulated period.
Learned counsel for the respondent-BSA submits that the petitioner
has approached the Court after a delay of nearly two years, as her
services were not renewed after 2023-2024. Therefore, the relief as
WRIA No. 13516 of 2026
2
prayed cannot be granted. However, he submits that in case a fresh
representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be looked
into in accordance with law.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without going
into the merits, and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition
is disposed of with a direction that, in case the petitioner moves a
fresh representation ventilating all her grievances, supported by such
documents as she may be advised, before respondent No.3, District
Basic Education Officer, Sambhal, within three weeks from today,
along with a certified copy of this order, respondent No.3 shall, on
such representation being made, make all endeavours to consider and
decide the same strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned and
speaking order, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months
from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there
is no legal impediment.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
September 29, 2026
Rahul.
Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…