Smt. Archana Srivastava vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2260 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 2
 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 190 of 2022
 
Appellant :- Smt. Archana Srivastava
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jaibind Singh Rathour,Mohan Singh
 
AND
 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 182 of 2022
 
Appellant :- Archana Srivastava
 
Respondent :- Manorama Mishra And Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Kumar Srivastava,Mahendra Bahadur Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Sharad Pathak,C.S.C.,Jaibind Singh Rathour,Mohan Singh
 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 182 of 2022
 

 

 
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

These two appeals arise out of the same issue which is pending consideration before the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 2918 of 2015 and Writ A 889 of 2013, as such with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, they have been taken up and heard together and are being decided by the common judgment.

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant in both the appeals, learned State Counsel and Sri Sharad Pathak, learned Counsel for the respondents in both the appeals. We have also perused the records available before us on these Special Appeals.

Before considering the respective submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, we may note certain facts which are relevant for the purposes of appropriate decision of these two Special Appeals.

In the year 2005 for making selection against six vacancies on the post of Shiksha Mitra, certain applicants had made their applications and accordingly a merit list was prepared in which name of the appellant-Smt. Archana Srivastava was shown at serial no. 1, whereas name of the other candidate namely Smt. Manorma Mishra was shown at serial no. 7. Since there were only six vacancies for which the said selection was held, Smt. Archana Srivastava was appointed as Shiksha Mitra whereas Smt. Manorma Misra could not be appointed.

Smt. Manorma Mishra, challenging the appointment of Smt. Archana Srivastava, instituted Writ A No. 2299(SS) of 2012, whereby a challenge was made to the appointment of Archana Srivastava as Shiksha Mitra. In the said writ petition , an order was passed by this Court on 18.07.2012 whereby the District Magistrate Sultanpur, was directed to conduct an enquiry into the allegation relating to forgery in the High School Mark-Sheet on the basis of which Smt. Archana Srivastava had sought her appointment as Shiksha Mitra. In compliance of the said judgment and order dated 18.07.2012 passed by this Court, the District Magistrate conducted an enquiry and submitted his report on 22.08.2012. In the said report the District Magistrate Sultanapur, opined that Smt. Archana Srivastava had presented a forged Mark-Sheet and on that basis she was appointed. By the said order dated 22.08.2012, the District Magistrate also cancelled the selection/ approval of selction of Smt. Archana Srivastava as Siksha Mitra.

It appears that in compliance of order dated 22.08.2012, Principal of the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) passed an order whereby the training of Smt. Archana Srivastava was undergoing, was stopped. The Assistant Basic Education Officer also wrote a handwritten note on 27.01.2013 requiring the Principal of the Primary School concerned where Smt. Archana Srivastava was undergoing training, to do the needful pursuant to the order dated 27.01.2013 passed by the Principal, DIET.

It is this hand written note/ order issued by the Assistant Basic Education Officer to the Principal of the Primary School concerned on 27.01.2013 that is the subject matter of challenge in Writ A No. 889 (SS) of 2013 filed by Smt. Archana Srivastava. In this writ petition, the learned Single Judge had initially passed an order on 19.02.2013 providing therein that in the meantime operation of the order dated 21.01.2013 shall remain stayed. It was also observed that there was no occasion for stalling the correspondence training course of Smt. Archana Srivastava. The said Writ A No. 889(SS) of 2013 was taken up again on 16.04.2019 where the learned Counsel representing the opposite parties informed the Court that Smt. Archana Srivastava though had challenged the consequential order however, she had not challenged the order of District Magistrate dated 22.08.2012, by which her appointment as Shiksha Mitra was cancelled.

Noticing the said submission made on behalf of learned Counsel for the opposite party, the learned Single Judge did not extend the interim order dated 19.02.2013, however, learned Single Judge granted a week's time to Smt. Archana Srivastava to challenge the order of District Magistrate dated 22.08.2012.

It is to be noted that despite there being no extension of interim order initially granted on 19.02.2013 in favour of Smt. Archana Srivastava in Writ A No. 889 (SS) of 2013 and despite the order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the District Magistrate having not been stayed, rescinded or cancelled or set aside, Smt. Archana Srivastava appears to have continued to complete her training and subsequently she was also appointed as Assistant Teacher on 28.04.2015.

Feeling aggrieved by the appointment of Smt. Archana Srivastava, Writ A No. 2918 (SS) of 2015 has been filed by Smt. Manorma Mishra not only as Assistant Teacher by means of the order dated 28.04.2015, but also against the order of her appointment as Shiksha Mitra.

The prayer made in the Writ A No. 2918 (SS) of 2015 are that the appointment of Smt. Archana Srivastava made on the post of Assistant Teacher and also on the post of Shiksha Mitra be quashed and respondents in the writ petition may be directed to allow Smt. Manorma Mishra to work as Assistant Teacher which is held by Smt. Archana Srivastava.

On 07.04.2022 both the writ petitions namely Writ A No. 2918 (SS) of 2015 and Writ A No. 889 (SS) of 2013, the one filed by Smt. Manorma Mishra, challenged the appointment of Smt. Archana Srivastava as Assistant Teacher and also as Shiksha Mitra and the other filed by Smt. Archana Srivastava challenging the order dated 27.01.2013, were listed before learned Single Judge and heard together.

By the order under appeal, dated 07.04.2022 the learned Single Judge has noticed that despite the fact that interim order dated 27.01.2013 was extended in Writ A No. 889 (SS) of 2013 on subsequent dates, Smt. Archana Srivastava not only continued her training, but was also appointed as Assistant Teacher.

The learned Single Judge has also noticed by the order passed on 22.08.2012, the District Magistrate had cancelled the appointment of Smt. Archana Srivastava. Learned Single Judge has even expressed his surprise as to how even after the report/order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Smt. Archana Srivastava had not filed any counter affidavit.

In the aforesaid factual scenario, the learned Single Judge by means of the order under appeal, dated 07.04.2022, in specific terms has vacated the interim order dated 19.02.2013. While vacating the interim order the Court has also observed and given findings that interim order dated 19.02.2013 in any case had not been extended in Writ A No. 889(SS) of 2013.

The primary submission of learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is that learned Single Judge in the order under appeal dated 07.04.2022 has noted an incorrect fact relating to the report/ order of District Magistrate dated 22.08.2012 having not been challenged by Smt. Archana Srivastava.

His submission is that in Writ A No. 889 (SS) of 2013, an amendment application was moved by Smt. Archana Srivastava for challenging the order/report of the District Magistrate dated 22.08.2012, which was allowed by means of the order dated 22.01.2019 passed by this Court. In this background submission is that learned Single Judge has not noticed the aforesaid facts and, thus, appears to have been mislead and instead of extending the interim order dated 19.02.2013, has vacated the same.

The aforesaid submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant-Smt. Archana Srivastava, in our considered opinion are not acceptable for the reason that admittedly report/ order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, whereby a categorical finding has been recorded by the District Magistrate that Smt. Archana Srivastava presented a forged High School Mark-Sheet on the basis of which she was appointed as Shiksha Mitra, has not been stayed, cancelled, rescinded or set aside by any other administrative authority or Forum or Court. It is the order dated 22.08.2012 which though has been sought to be challenged by way of amendment in Writ A No. 889 (SS) of 2013, however in the said writ petition, Court has not granted any interim order staying the operation of the order of District Magistrate dated 22.08.2012. Thus, the fact remains that till date there is an order passed by the District Magistrate wherein a categorical stand has been taken that Smt. Archana Srivastava had procured her appointment as Shiksha Mitra, on the basis of forged document, namely High School Mark-Sheet.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not erred in any manner by vacating the interim order dated 19.02.2013. Thus, we are in full agreement with the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge. We are, resultantly, not inclined to interfere in the Special Appeals.

There is yet another reason, why we do not intend to interfere in this Special Appeal. Admittedly, the order under appeal dated 07.04.2022 is only an order which is interlocutory in nature. By the order under appeal, the interim order has only been vacated. The issues between the parties are yet to be finally adjudicated and since by the order under review, no issue between the parties has been decided finally hence, in our opinion, the Special Appeals are not maintainable for this reason as well.

For the reasons given above, we find that both the Special Appeals lack merits, which are hereby dismissed. However, we request the learned Single Judge to expedite the hearing of Writ A No. 2918 (SS) of 2015 and Writ A No. 889 (SS) of 2013 and concluded the same at the earliest, preferably within a period of two months from the date pleadings in both the writ petitions are completed.

There will be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 7.5.2022/Jyoti/-