Allahabad High Court
Pankaj Kumar Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 1 April, 2022
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1850 of 2022
Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagendra Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kr Singh Suryvanshi
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard.
Petitioner's grievance is that though he has been selected for appointment as lecturer in Geography consequent to Advertisement No.2/2021 issued in pursuance to the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh's case, instead of allotting and accommodating him in a college where he is already teaching as an ad-hoc teacher as has been done in other cases, he has been allotted a college in Hardoi.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court an order dated 14.03.2022 passed in Writ-A No.1411 of 2022 [Madan Mohan Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] in similar circumstances, which reads as under:-
"Heard.
The petitioner's own case is that he has been allocated the Institution at Aligarh. Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner says that five similarly situated teachers as the petitioner have been allocated the institution where they were working on adhoc basis. Hence, this petition.
Sri Raj Kr. Singh Suryvanshi, learned counsel for the Board informs that the Board has already sent the list including the name of the petitioner for allocation of the Institution at Aligarh.
As regards reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon Rule 13(5) of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998, the same is misconceived for the reason that the adjustment referred therein is subsequent to allocation of Institution in the eventuality the post for which the candidate has been selected is not vacant or and for any other reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the words 'or for any other reason' to submit that this would include a situation such as that of the petitioner as he was already working in the Institution. With due respect, the Court is unable to agree with this understanding and interpretation of Rule 13(5) of the Rules, 1998. The words 'for any other reason' would mean a reason not of the petitioner's making resulting in a situation where he could not join on the post in the allocated Institution which is not the case here, as of now. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Institution which has been allocated to him does not have vacant post on which he has been selected. Therefore, Rule 13(5) of the Rules, 1998 does not apply in the case of the petitioner at all. As regards reliance placed by Sri N.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment dated 15.12.2021 rendered in Writ Petition No.29371 (S/S) of 2021 [Shashank Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Ors.], it is an order passed without considering the merits of the case as is observed therein and does not lay down any ratio being a binding precedent. It is at best an order passed in the facts of that case. Nothing more need to be said as there is no such right under any statutory provision or rule which may entitle the petitioner to maintain this petition for the reliefs prayed that after being selected he should be allocated the Institution where he is already working. Of course, the Board can always in its own discretion, subject to relevant aspects of the matter consider such request. But no mandamus can be issued. If the Board wants to consider request of the petitioner for such allocation then this judgment would not come in their way. It shall be open for the Board to do so, if otherwise permissible in law, especially if, other similarly situated have been considered and allocated.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. "
Learned counsel for the Board has no objection if the petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
Considering the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
(Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 1.4.2022
Shanu/-
