Allahabad High Court
KUMUD KUMARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SIDDHARTH NANDAN
Holding
The court declined to issue mandamus and directed the petitioner to file a representation, disposing of the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Kumud Kumari, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to regularize her appointment as Principal after serving as an adhoc Principal for over five years. She alleged that the Director of Education (Secondary) had requested details of such employees in July 2019, which she submitted, but no action was taken. The petitioner relied on a prior judgment (Harvindra & 4 others v. State of U.P.) where similar relief was granted. The respondents' standing counsel indicated no objection if the petitioner filed a detailed representation. The court, by consent of the parties, disposed of the petition at the admission stage, directing the petitioner to file a representation within seven days and the respondent to decide it within three months, thereby refusing to issue mandamus.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel regularization of an adhoc Principal after five years of service.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in Harvindra & 4 others v. State of U.P.
- Whether the petition should be dismissed at the admission stage pending a representation by the petitioner.
Subjects
- regularization
- adhoc principal
- writ of mandamus
- representation
- education service
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15944 of 2026
Kumud Kumari
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ritesh Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Shri Ritesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the
petitioner for regularization on the post of Principal and it has been stated
that he has been working as an adhoc Principal for more than 5 years and
is fully eligible and qualified for being regularized.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Director of Education
(Secondary) vide its letter dated 10.07.2019 had sought details of such
employees from all the District Inspector of Schools and in pursuance,
thereafter she has also submitted her details but till date no action has
been taken. He further submits that in a similar circumstances, this Court
vide order dated 06.07.2026 passed in Writ-A No.8785 of 2026
(Harvindra and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and others) has directed the
respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner; and petitioner,
herein, is also entitled to the same relief.
4. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection, in case the petitioner files
a detailed representation, the same shall be considered.
5. In view of the aforesaid, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping
the aforesaid writ petition pending and by the consent of the parties, the
writ petition is being decided at the admission stage, directing the
petitioner to file a representation before the respondent no.2 within 7 days
WRIA No. 15944 of 2026
2
from today, along with the certified copy of this order; and in the event
such a representation is filed by the petitioner within the said period, it is
expected that the respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same
expeditiously, preferably within a period of next 3 months.
6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands
disposed off.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
September 30, 2026
piyush
Digitally signed by :-
PIYUSH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…