Allahabad High Court
PREETI SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The Court declined to grant mandamus due to the delay but directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation and ordered the respondent to decide it expeditiously.
Summary
The petitioner, Preeti Sharma, 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 decide on representations she had submitted. She alleged that her services were not renewed after the 2023‑24 term and that no reason was given for the non‑renewal. The respondent argued that the petition was filed after an inordinate delay of nearly two years, rendering relief unavailable, but suggested that a fresh representation could be considered. The Court, without examining the merits, declined to grant the mandamus due to the delay, but with the parties' consent ordered that the petitioner file a fresh, fully supported representation within three weeks. Upon receipt, the respondent must decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within two months, and issue a reasoned order. The petition was therefore disposed with a direction for fresh representation and timely adjudication.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel renewal of a part‑time instructor's appointment after a delay of two years.
- Whether the petition is barred by the delay in filing.
- Whether the petitioner may be directed to make a fresh representation and the respondent be bound to decide it within a stipulated period.
Subjects
- administrative law
- service renewal
- mandamus
- delay
- representation
- education
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15895 of 2026
Preeti Sharma
.....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 Mirjapur Kakraua, 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 28.05.2025
and 22.08.2026.
(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. 15895 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 30, 2026
Rahul.
Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…