Allahabad High Court
Kavita Mishra vs State Of U.P Thru. Its Secy. ... on 5 May, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 24 of 2022
Appellant :- Kavita Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Its Secy. (Secondary Education) And 6 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Jauhari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Tripathi,Shiv Pal Singh
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
On the oral prayer made by learned counsel for appellant, leave to appeal is granted for the reason that respondent no.7 herein, who had filed petition before learned Single Judge, claims her appointment against the post on which the present appellant-Kavita Mishra is said to be working on adhoc basis.
Heard Sri A.K.Jauhari, learned counsel for appellant, learned State Counsel representing the State authorities, Sri R.K.S.Suryavanshi, learned counsel for Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board and Sri Shiv Pal Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.7-Urmila Maurya.
By instituting proceedings of the present intra court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, the appellant seeks to impeach the judgment and order dated 16.02.2022 whereby Writ-A No.395 of 2022 filed by respondent no.7-Urmila Maurya has been allowed and a direction has been issued to the District Inspector of Schools, Sultanpur to ensure that Urmila Maurya joins her duties in the institution.
Submission of learned counsel for appellant is that the appellant has been working in the institution on the post against which respondent no.7 has been selected and placed in the institution concerned. Further submission is that in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others (M.A No.818/2021 in re: Civil Appeal No.8300/2016), dated 07.12.2021, appellant-Kavita Mishra is entitled to be continued on the post in question.
Drawing attention of the Court to the said judgment, it has been stated by learned counsel for appellant that Hon'ble Supreme Court by the said judgment had observed that 18 persons who are said to have been appointed in terms of the provisions contained in Section 16E (11) of the Intermediate Education Act, may be given appointment and accordingly said direction was issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further submission is that since the appellant was also appointed in terms of Section 16E (11) of Intermediate Education Act, as such she is entitled to be continued on her post in terms of the said order dated 07.12.2021 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh and others (supra).
The aforesaid submission, in our considered opinion, is absolutely misconceived and the same is not available to the appellant for the reason that the said direction in the order dated 07.12.2021 was issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the facts of the said case in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for appellant has miserably failed to establish firstly that the appellant was amongst 18 persons whose cases have been referred in the judgment and order dated 07.12.2021, and secondly that her appointment was made in terms of the provisions contained in Section 16E (11) of Intermediate Education Act.
On the other hand, what we notice is that respondent no.7 is a duly selected candidate by the Selection Board and has been placed to join the institution concerned namely, Subhash Inter College, Kandhaipur, Sultanpur. Thus, learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order dated 16.02.2022 which is under appeal has only directed the District Inspector of Schools to ensure the joining of respondent no.7.
In view of aforesaid, we do not see any ground to interfere in the order passed by learned Single Judge. The special appeal being highly misconceived is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.5.2022
Renu/-
