Allahabad High Court
SUNIL KUMAR AND 20 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The writ petition is disposed of, with the petitioners directed to make fresh detailed representations before the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, without any determination on the merits.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of 21 candidates, sought to avail the benefit of a Supreme Court judgment (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Neeraj Kumar Pandey, SLP (C) No.18516 of 2019) which directed the state to consider all candidates who scored higher than the lowest‑scoring appointed assistant teacher, subject to a filing deadline of 31 December 2019. They argued that they were entitled to appointment (without seniority or arrears) under that order. The respondents (State of U.P. and the Basic Shiksha Parishad) contended that the writ petition served no useful purpose and that the petitioners should instead make fresh, detailed representations before the competent authority. The High Court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, disposed of the writ petition and directed the petitioners to file fresh representations before the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, within three weeks, and for the authority to decide the matter within two months. The order thus provides a procedural pathway rather than granting immediate relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are 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 dismissed in view of the Supreme Court order and the filing deadline.
- Whether the petitioners should be directed to make fresh representations before the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad.
Subjects
- recruitment
- assistant teacher appointment
- writ petition
- Supreme Court direction
- fresh representation
- Uttar Pradesh
- Basic Shiksha Parishad
- merit list
- seniority
- arrears of salary
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 7724 of 2016
Sunil Kumar And 20 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Kumar Saroj, Navin Kumar
Sharma, Rahul Agarwal, Vinay Kumar
Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rajendra Prasad, Santosh
Kumar
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.
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. 7724 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 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 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…