Allahabad High Court
BIRENDER KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 ORS.
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The writ petition is disposed, directing the petitioner to make a fresh detailed representation before the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, without granting the relief sought.
Summary
Petitioner Birender Kumar filed a writ petition seeking to avail the benefit of a recent Supreme Court judgment (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Neeraj Kumar Pandey, 2025) concerning the recruitment of Assistant Teachers, which directed the state to consider candidates who scored higher than the appointed candidate, subject to a filing deadline of 31 December 2019. The petitioner argued that he should be considered under that order. The respondents contended that the writ petition served no useful purpose and that any claim should be made through a fresh representation before the competent authority. The High Court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to submit a detailed representation, with supporting documents, to the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, within three weeks, and for the authority to decide the matter within two months. The court emphasized compliance with the Supreme Court order and the need for a reasoned decision by the authority.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief granted by the Supreme Court judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Neeraj Kumar Pandey.
- Whether the writ petition should be entertained or the petitioner should be directed to make a fresh representation before the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad.
Subjects
- recruitment
- appointment
- assistant teachers
- writ petition
- fresh representation
- Supreme Court judgment
- eligibility
- seniority
- arrears of salary
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 56026 of 2016
Birender Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Navin Kumar Sharma, Shubham
Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Kushmondeya Shahi, Rama Nand
Pandey, C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar Singh,
Sunil Kumar Singh
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the State as well as learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3.
2. It is the case of petitioner that he 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. 56026 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 nos.2 and 3 submits 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
petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing that the
petitioner may make a fresh detailed representation, ventilating all his
grievances, supported by all such documents, as may be advised, before
the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Prayagraj, within three
weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. On such
representation being made, Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P.
Prayagraj shall make all endeavours to consider and decide the same,
strictly in accordance with law, by means of a 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…