Allahabad High Court
RENU GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Regional Level Committee and refraining from expressing any view on the merits.
Summary
The petitioner, Renu Gupta, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of U.P. and other respondents to consider his claim for promotion to Lecturer (English) under the 50% quota as per the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1995. He alleged that his promotion application had remained pending despite repeated requests. The respondents argued that the grievance should be addressed by the Regional Level Committee and did not oppose a court‑ordered timeline for a fresh representation. The High Court, noting that the matter could be more appropriately resolved by the Committee, declined to rule on the merits and ordered the petitioner to file a fresh representation within three weeks, with the Committee to decide within four months. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any substantive observation on the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the State authorities to consider the petitioner's promotion claim under the relevant statutes.
- Whether the petitioner's grievance is more appropriately redressed by the Regional Level Committee rather than by the Court.
- Whether the Court may dispose of the writ petition without adjudicating its merits by directing a fresh representation.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921
- U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1995 — s. Rule 14
Subjects
- promotion
- lecturer
- quota
- writ of mandamus
- administrative law
- service matters
- regional level committee
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 5552 of 2026
Renu Gupta
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kamal Kumar Kesherwani, Vimal
Chandra Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel
representing State-respondents and perused the record on board.
2. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Issue a writ order or issue a writ of mandamus commanding and
directing the Respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for
accord the approval of the promotion on the post of Lecturer (English)
under 50% quota against the sanctioned 7 posts of Lecturer as per
provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 Chapter II,
Regulation 5 & 6 and also under Rule 14 of the U.P. Secondary
Education Service Commission Rules, 1995.
(b) Issue a writ order or issue a writ of mandamus commanding and
directing the Respondents to consider and decide the representation of
the petitioner within stipulated period so fix by this Hon'ble Court.
(c) Issue, any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case to
which the petitioner may found entitle in law."
3. It has been submitted that the claim of the present petitioner for promotion
from the post of Assistant Teacher LT Grade to the post of Lecturer
(English) has not been decided till date in accordance with law despite the
repeated requests made on his behalf.
WRIA No. 5552 of 2026
2
4. Sri Awadhesh Kumar Shukla, learned Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of the State-respondents No. 1 to 5 has contended that the grievance
of the present petitioner can be more appropriately redressed by the Regional
Level Committee, respondent No. 4, and he has no objection, in case, a
direction is issued for expeditious disposal of a fresh representation to be
moved by the petitioner within such stipulated period as may be directed by
this Court.
5. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served by
keeping this matter pending. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to
finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation
on the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh
representation before the Regional Level Committee, respondent No. 4, to
ventilate his grievance, as averred in the present writ petition, within a
period of three weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order
and a self attested copy of the present writ petition, and, in turn, he shall
consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously,
preferably, within a period of four months from the date of production of
such representation.
6. With the aforesaid observation, present writ petition is disposed of.
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
April 20, 2026
vinay
Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…