Allahabad High Court
SANJEEV KUMAR AND 105 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The petitioners are not within the ambit of paragraphs 13 and 16 of the Supreme Court judgment and are therefore not entitled to the relief sought.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of 106 candidates, filed a writ petition seeking an order directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to extend the benefit of a Supreme Court judgment dated 29 January 2025 (State of U.P. v. Neeraj Kumar Pandey) to their claims for appointment as Assistant Teachers (Mathematics and Science). The Supreme Court order limited eligibility to candidates meeting the criteria specified in paragraphs 13 and 16 of that judgment. The State's standing counsel argued that the petitioners do not satisfy those parameters and are therefore ineligible for the relief sought. The High Court examined the submissions and found that the petitioners are "fence‑sitters" who fall outside the ambit of the Supreme Court's criteria. Consequently, the Court held that the writ petition lacks merit. The petition was dismissed without any order extending the Supreme Court benefit to the petitioners.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners fall within the parameters laid down in paragraphs 13 and 16 of the Supreme Court judgment dated 29.01.2025.
- Whether the State is obligated to consider the petitioners for appointment as Assistant Teachers under that Supreme Court order.
Subjects
- Assistant Teacher appointment
- Writ petition
- Supreme Court order
- Eligibility criteria
- Uttar Pradesh public service recruitment
- Paragraph 13
- Paragraph 16
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6780 of 2026
Sanjeev Kumar And 105 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mukul Yadav, Rajesh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kushmondeya Shahi
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the
State, Mr. K Shahi, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA, and perused the
record.
The writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondent-State
to extend the benefit of order of the Apex Court dated 29.01.2025 passed in
SLP No. 18516 of 2019 and consider their claim for appointment on the
posts of Assistant Teachers (Mathematics and Science).
At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel submits that, pursuant to the
order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs.
Neeraj Kumar Pandey and others (Special Leave Petition (C) No. Nil of
2025 (Diary No. 18516 of 2019), only those candidates who fall within the
parameters laid down in paragraphs 13 and 16 of the said judgment are
entitled to be considered. It is further submitted that the petitioners have
approached this Court for the first time and is a fence-sitter, not falling
within the ambit of paragraphs 13 and 16 of the aforesaid judgment, and,
therefore, is not entitled to the relief as prayed.
In view of the above, the writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
May 6, 2026
DS
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
DIGAMBER SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…