Allahabad High Court
Arvind vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 8 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:178998
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15146 of 2025
Arvind
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Deo Prakash Singh, Yaduvanshi Birendra Mohan
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Prateek Srivastava, Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Ankit Shukla holding brief of Sri Prateek Srivastava for the respondent no. 7.
2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit and the petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the petition be decided at the fresh stage.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the State Government issued a Government Order dated 25.07.2021 with the aim to improve the gram panchayats while filling up the post of Panchayat Assistant/Computer-cum-Data Entry Operators in the State of Uttar Pradesh at village level. An advertisement to the said extent came to be issued on 08.07.2005, the writ petitioner along with the respondent no. 7 and others applied, thereafter, a select list came to be published wherein the name of the writ petitioner found place at serial no. 3 and respondent no. 7 at serial no. 1.
4. Questioning the select/merit list, the present writ petition has been preferred.
5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that respondent no. 7 is not eligible to be considered for appointment on the said post as he has submitted Intermediate/12th examination result-2019 for Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. in which seventh respondent had failed, however, on the basis of the online result of the year 2019, Intermediate from Uttar Pradesh State Open School Board, he was selected in that regard. Submission is that for the same academic year, it is not permissible for the seventh respondent to pursue two examinations in that regard. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that there happens to be an Act by the name of Uttar Pradesh State Open School Board containing the object for establishment of State Open School Board in the State of Uttar Pradesh to provide distant education at school level to all those who cannot get themselves admitted to the school and as per the statement of object and reason, the same is only referable to those students who could not enroll in any regular educational institution. A copy of the guidelines for admission of 12th (Intermediate through correspondence mode ) has been produced according to which the programme is specifically designed for those students who are not enrolled in any regular educational institution. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that it is not open for the respondent no. 7 to rely upon the online result 2019 of Intermediate of Uttar Pradesh State Open School Board.
6. Learned Standing Counsel as well as counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7 have sought to rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in A Dharmaraj Vs. The Chief Educational Officer, Pudukkottai & Others : Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2022 decided on 18.08.2022 as well as the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kuldeep Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. (2016) 3 SCC 521 so as to contend that there is no prohibition in not pursuing education from two different modes. Counsel for the respondent no. 7 submit that the respondents had only been selected but there has been no joining done and in case, the writ petitioner has any grievance then it is for the District Magistrate, Chandauli, District Chandauli to take a call upon the same.
7. To such a submission, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has no objection and he gracefully accepts the same.
8. Considering the submission so made across the bar and looking into the overall fact situation and bearing in mind the contention so raised between the parties, the writ petition stands disposed of requiring the writ petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation along with self attested copy of the writ petition, certified copy of the order by 17.10.2025 before the District Magistrate, Chandauli, District Chandauli who shall thereupon proceed to examine the said issue and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of one month therefrom.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.) October 8, 2025 Rajesh