Allahabad High Court
NISHIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The Court directed the respondent to decide the petitioner’s representation within one month, issuing a mandamus‑like order without adjudicating the substantive merit of the allocation request.
Summary
The petitioner, Nishi, a candidate of OBC category with merit rank 34 in the U.P. TGT 2022 exam, sought reallocation of her institution allotment under the applicable reservation law and Rule 12(10) of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998. She filed a representation with the Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission on 11 September 2026, but no action was taken. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondent to grant her the allotted seat or an equivalent vacancy. The Court, after hearing counsel, declined to opine on the merits of the allocation but exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to direct the respondent to decide the representation within a month, after verifying documents and passing a reasoned order. The petition was therefore disposed with a specific direction to the respondent, without granting or denying the substantive relief sought.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate judicial remedy for a grievance concerning non‑consideration of a representation under Rule 12(10) of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998?
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing the Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission to re‑allot the petitioner’s seat in accordance with reservation provisions.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998 — s. Rule 12(10)
Subjects
- reservation
- institutional allotment
- mandamus
- administrative law
- U.P. education service
- Rule 12(10)
- OBC category
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15011 of 2026
Nishi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sudhakar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kushmondeya Shahi
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondent, Mr. Kushmondeya Shahi, learned counsel for the
respondent no.2 and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following
reliefs:-
"i). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent no.2 to reallot the
petitioner's institution allotment as per her 05 choices being a higher merit Rank 34 according to her
UR/OBC Category status, the applicable reservation law, the preference submitted by her and Rule 12(10)
of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998 having Roll No.0404038132 in
advertisement no.01/2022/TGT Exam-2022 in Boys Category, Subject Home Science or any nearby
vacant seat in the subject of Home Science.
ii). to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the
circumstances of this case.
iii) award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, at the Bar, that for redressal of
her grievances, the petitioner moved a representation before Respondent
No. 2 on 11.09.2026, but nothing has been done till date. Therefore, a
direction may be issued to Respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's
representation in accordance with law within a stipulated period.
Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the aforesaid
prayer.
WRIA No. 15011 of 2026
2
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case but without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case set up on behalf of the petitioner, the
present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent
no.2, i.e. Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection
Commission, Alenganj, Prayagraj, to decide the petitioner's representation
dated 11.09.2026, in accordance with law, after verifying all the relevant
documents, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of one month from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal
impediment.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
September 18, 2026
Jitendra/-
Digitally signed by :-
JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…