Allahabad High Court
SMT SEEMA VERMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed, and the petitioner is directed to pursue the alternative remedy under Rule 5 of the U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973.
Summary
Smt. Seema Verma filed a writ petition challenging a decision of the State of U.P. and others, alleging that her grievances should be addressed without delay. The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Rule 5 of the U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973, which allows an appeal to the appropriate appellate authority. The petitioner sought a direction that, if such an appeal were filed, the appellate authority should decide the matter in accordance with law and ignore any procedural delay. The Court, without expressing any view on the merits, dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to file an appeal under the said rule within three weeks, attaching a certified copy of the order. The Court further instructed the appellate authority to decide the appeal, ignoring any delay, within three months and to issue a reasoned order.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy under Rule 5 of the U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973, is available.
- Whether the Court can direct the appellate authority to ignore any delay in deciding the appeal.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- maintainability
- alternative remedy
- U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules
- administrative law
- delay
- appellate authority
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 5855 of 2026
Smt Seema Verma
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Vashistha
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Gaurav Bishan
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gaurav Bishan, learned
counsel for respondent-BSA and learned Standing Counsel for the
State.
At the very outset, learned counsel for respondent-BSA submits that
the petition is not maintainable as there is an alternative remedy to
file appeal under Rule 5 of U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973.
He further submits that in case, such an appeal is filed according to
the aforesaid Rule, the same may be decided by the appellate
authority in accordance with law.
On the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that in case,
such an appeal is filed, a direction may be issued to the appellate
authority to decide the same in accordance with law, ignoring the
delay, if any.
Considering the facts and circumstance 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 petitioner may file an appeal under Rule 5 of U.P. Basic
Education Staff Rules, 1973, ventilating all her grievances,
supported by such documents, as may be advised, before the
appellate authority, within three weeks from today along with a
certified copy of this order. On such appeal being filed by the
petitioner, the appellate authority shall make all endeavours to
WRIA No. 5855 of 2026
2
consider and decide the same, ignoring the delay, if any, strictly in
accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order,
preferably within a period of three months, thereafter, if there is no
legal impediment.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
April 23, 2026
Rahul.
Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…