Allahabad High Court
Pavnesh Kumar Yadav And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 October, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:202953 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16212 of 2023 Petitioner :- Pavnesh Kumar Yadav And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Ji Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Gopal Ji Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners who are four in number and Sri Shailendra Singh learned Standing Counsel, who appears for respondents 1, 2 and 3.
In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the fourth respondent.
The case of the writ petitioners is that fourth respondent, Adarsh Sanskrit Vidyalay Kishore Chetan Sikanderpur, District Ballia is a Sanskrit institution governed under the provisions of U.P. Sanskrit Education Act, 2000. It is further the case of the writ petitioner that there nine sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher in the primary section approval was sought from theDistrict Inspector Schools, Ballia but the same was not accorded thus the Committee of Management of the institution in question constituted a selection committee pursuant to publication of the advertisement and the writ petitioners claim to have been issued appointment order on 21.2.2019 and they have accorded joining on 23.2.2019.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioners relied upon a judgement in the case of State of U.P. vs. Tarkeshwar Nath Singh (2015) 3 ADJ 591 so as to contend that the teachers working in the primary section are entitled to salary at par with the teachers in the High School and Intermediate sections.
Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the second respondent, District Inspector Schools, Ballia to accord consideration to the claim of the writ petitioner.
Sri Shailendra Singh learned Standing Counsel submits that the issue as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to the said benefits needs determination and the instance of the second respondent, District Inspector Schools, Ballia who shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law. He further submits that he does not propose to file any response to the writ petition.
To such a submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection and he gracefully accepts the same.
Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well as stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed off without seeking any response from the respondents granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with the self-attested copy of the writ petition before the second respondent, District Inspector Schools, Ballia, who shall on the receipt of the same, the second respondent shall put to notice the fourth respondent and decide the entitlement of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order bearing in mind the position of the sanctioned strength, vacancies, selection area adopted as per rules, import and impact of non grant of approval continuance as well as the applicability of the judgement in the case of Tarkeshwar Nath Singh (Supra) .
Needless to point out that the writ petition has been decided without seeking any response from the respondents. Thus, passing of this order may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the case.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 19.10.2023 piyush