Allahabad High Court
POONAM MAURYA AND 21 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners may make fresh detailed representations before the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, within three weeks, and the authority shall decide the matter expeditiously.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of candidates for Assistant Teacher (Science and Mathematics) posts, sought to invoke a Supreme Court judgment (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Neeraj Kumar Pandey, SLP (C) No.18516 of 2019) that directed the state to consider candidates who scored higher than the appointed candidate, albeit without seniority or arrears. They argued that they were entitled to the benefits of that judgment despite filing their writ petition after the Supreme Court‑imposed deadline of 31 December 2019. The respondents contended that the petition should be dismissed and that any further consideration should be made through fresh representations before the competent authority. The High Court, without expressing a view on the merits, disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioners to file detailed representations within three weeks before the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad. The Court ordered the authority to decide the representations expeditiously, preferably within two months, and to issue a reasoned order. Thus, the petition was not granted relief but was directed to a procedural route for consideration.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the Supreme Court judgment despite filing after the stipulated deadline.
- Whether the High Court can dispose of the writ petition without adjudicating the substantive merit of the petitioners' claims.
- Whether directing the petitioners to make fresh representations before the Secretary is an appropriate remedy.
Subjects
- recruitment
- assistant teacher appointment
- merit list
- writ petition
- fresh representation
- Supreme Court direction
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 22666 of 2016
Poonam Maurya And 21 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 7 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Navin Kumar Sharma, Rahul Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : , Amit Shukla, Bhola Nath Yadav,
C.S.C., Ram Chandra, Sanjay Kumar
Srivastava, Uday Shanker Upadhyay
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
the State as well as learned counsel for respondent(s)-BSA Mr. K. Shahi.
2. It is the case of petitioners that they may avail benefit of a recent
judgment passed by Supreme Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh vs.
Neeraj Kumar Pandey and Others (Special Leave Petition (C) Diary
No.18516 of 2019), decided on 29.01.2025, arising out of same
recruitment process and for reference, following paragraphs of said
judgment are reproduced hereinafter :-
"13. In the circumstances as above, we direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to consider the
claims of each of the candidates who were the petitioners before the single judge for
appointment on posts of Assistant Teachers (Science and Mathematics). Those of the
candidates who are found to have secured marks more than the candidate who has
been appointed with the least number of marks shall be considered and offered
appointment, in accordance with law, with the clear stipulation that such candidate
shall not be entitled to seniority as well as arrears of salary.
14. To facilitate compliance of this order, we grant liberty to the successful candidates
before the High Court to place before the State a list indicating the marks that such
candidates would have been entitled to, had the process not been kept on hold, in
terms of the formula that has been adopted for assessing the merit of all the
candidates.
WRIA No. 22666 of 2016
2
15. Let this exercise be completed as early as possible, but preferably within three
months from date and in any case not beyond six months.
16. It is made clear that only those candidates who have approached this Court with
writ petitions/interlocutory applications seeking intervention, impleadment, etc. any
time before 31st December, 2019 shall be entitled to the benefit of this order. Relief is
declined to the others on the ground that they were fence-sitters."
3. Learned counsel for respondent(s)-BSA as well as learned Standing
Counsel for the State submit that no useful purpose would be served in
keeping the writ petition pending and in case a fresh detailed
representation is given before the competent authority, the same may be
considered and decided in accordance with law.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case set up on behalf of the
petitioners, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing that the
petitioners may make fresh detailed representations, ventilating all their
grievances, supported by all such documents, as may be advised, before
the respondent no.2-Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad,
within three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order.
On such representation being made, respondent no.2-Secretary, Basic
Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad shall make all endeavours to consider
and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, by means of
reasoned and speaking order, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to
the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a
period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this
order, if there is no legal impediment.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
October 1, 2026
K.N.
Digitally signed by :-
KALP NATH SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…