Allahabad High Court
Hina Islam vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Judgment Reserved
Judgment Delivered on: 20.10.2022
Court No. - 33
1) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8949 of 2022
Petitioner :- Hina Islam
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
Along with
2) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5969 of 2022
Petitioner :- Kapil Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakshmi Kant Trigunait,Dev Kant Trigunait
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
3) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8816 of 2022
Petitioner :- Neetu Maurya
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jawahar Lal Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Mrigraj Singh
4) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9317 of 2022
Petitioner :- Urmila Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi
5) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9756 of 2022
Petitioner :- Jitendra Garg And 8 Others
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishan Mohan Pandey,Anand Mohan Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Daya Ram
6) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10002 of 2022
Petitioner :- Anil Jaiswal And 104 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashank Kumar,Chandra Bhushan Yadav,Tej Prakash Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
7) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10084 of 2022
Petitioner :- Neha Bharti
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mohan Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Daya Ram
8) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10097 of 2022
Petitioner :- Jasvindar Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mohan Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Daya Ram
9) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10193 of 2022
Petitioner :- Mohit Kumar And 17 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Singh Bohra,Ajeet Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
10) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10507 of 2022
Petitioner :- Amresh Kumar And 15 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakshmi Kant Trigunait,Dev Kant Trigunait
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Sanjay Kumar
11) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10696 of 2022
Petitioner :- Arvind Singh And 138 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Syed Nadeem Ahmad
12) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11057 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ashutosh Gupta And 26 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldeep Singh Yadav,Karma Singh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Archana Singh
13) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11121 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rinki Sahu And 92 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Syed Nadeem Ahmad
14) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11506 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vijay Bahadur Singh And 64 Others
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Man Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
15) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11603 of 2022
Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Namdev And 7 Others
Respondent :- The State Of U P And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakshmi Kant Trigunait,Dev Kant Trigunait
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
16) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11738 of 2022
Petitioner :- Seema
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Nishad
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
17) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11940 of 2022
Petitioner :- Shiv Mohan Singh And 64 Others
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avanish Kumar Pandey,Lalit Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Archana Singh
18) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12061 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Laxmi And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
19) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12064 of 2022
Petitioner :- Anupam And Another
Respondent :- State Of U P And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhu Ranjan Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
20) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12090 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rijwan Khan And 183 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhushan Yadav,Tej Prakash Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
21) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12101 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rajendra Pal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Kumar,Vishesh Rajvanshi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
22) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12108 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ankit Choudhary And 25 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakshmi Kant Trigunait,Dev Kant Trigunait
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
23) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13094 of 2022
Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Vishwakarma And 46 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Syed Nadeem Ahmad
24) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13433 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rahul Singh Yadav And 12 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Yadav,Manoj Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
25) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13621 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rohit Singh Parihar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Kushwaha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nand Kishore Singh
26) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7338 of 2022
Petitioner :- Km. Abhilasha
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Syed Nadeem Ahmad
27) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11758 of 2022
Petitioner :- Jai Prakash And 12 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakshmi Kant Trigunait,Dev Kant Trigunait
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
28) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9933 of 2022
Petitioner :- Avinash Singh And 12 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Chaudhary,Ram Sajiwan Prajapati
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
29) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12540 of 2020
Petitioner :- Deeksha Patel
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Surat Patel,Man Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Kumar Chand
30) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14911 of 2022
Petitioner :- Maneesh Yadav And 37 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghana Ram Niranjan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
31) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6983 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rashmi Verma And 24 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakshmi Kant Trigunait,Dev Kant Trigunait
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bipin Bihari Pandey,Syed Nadeem Ahmad,Yatindra,A.K.Yadav
32) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12510 of 2022
Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Awadhesh Kumar
33) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14053 of 2022
Petitioner :- Yashpal Maurya And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others 30
Counsel for Petitioner :- Md. Nuruddin Khan,Umakant Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
34) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15606 of 2022
Petitioner :- Gaurav Pandey And 73 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- O.P.S. Rathore
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
35) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15219 of 2022
Petitioner :- Shubham Gupta And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakshmi Kant Trigunait,Dev Kant Trigunait
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
36) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15484 of 2022
Petitioner :- Chanda Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- O.P.S. Rathore
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
37) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16174 of 2022
Petitioner :- Uzma Ameen And 89 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Syed Nadeem Ahmad
38) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16910 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vishvendra Singh And 95 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Syed Nadeem Ahmad
39) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16876 of 2022
Petitioner :- Poonam Yadav And 13 Others
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Archana Singh,Syed Nadeem Ahmad
40) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9707 of 2022
Petitioner :- Gyanveer Singh And 32 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Syed Nadeem Ahmad
41) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13261 of 2022
Petitioner :- Lokendra Tripathi And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajkapoor Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
42) Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9350 of 2022
Petitioner :- Somu Dantrey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Hitesh Pachori
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
1. All the above referred writ petitions involve identical questions of law and facts. The Writ Petition (C) No. 8949 of 2022 is being treated as the leading writ petition and the facts pertaining to the same is being considered for deciding the controversy involved.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent, Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Secretary, U.P., Basic Shiksha Parishad, Shiksha Nedeshalaya at Prayagraj have been heard at length.
3. By means of the writ petition (Writ-C No. 8949 of 2022) the petitioner is seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3-Secretary, U.P., Basic Shiksha Parishad, Shiksha Nedeshalaya at Prayagraj to forthwith revise the allocation of district in the select list of Assistant Teacher after considering the preference and total quality point marks of the petitioner within a stipulated period of time.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the Advertisement for 68500 posts of Assistant Teacher in Primary Schools run by U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad dated 9.1.2018. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Assistant Teacher. The petitioner opted for her home district Prayagraj/Allahabad as her 1st choice, 2nd choice and 3rd choice, being Kaushambi and Sant Ravidas Nagar. The petitioner obtained 61.894 quality point marks. Petitioner was allotted district Sonbhadra even though she has obtained more quality point marks than the selected candidate in their home district. It is contended that the petitioner has more quality point marks than other similarly situated candidates who have been selected and allotted their home districts and the petitioner has been discriminated against.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that meanwhile some of the selected candidates who were denied the allotment of the districts of their choice despite having higher quality point marks approached this Hon'ble Court by filing writ petitions leading amongst them, being writ petition No. 19737 of 2018 (Shikha Singh & 48 others versus State of U.P. and others). The bunch of writ petitions came to be decided by a common order dated 29.8.2019 whereby holding that the allotment of district made by the respondents could not be sustained in so far as it related to Meritorious Reserved Candidates (Meritorious to their respective reserved category) and to that extent proceeded to quash it. The District Basic Education Officer (respondent No. 3 therein) was directed to carry on the process of allotment of district to MRC candidates only treating them to be reserved category candidate only for the purpose of allotment of district of their choice. It was further directed that the MRC candidates who alleged that they were not allotted districts of their choice /performance despite being MRC candidates were given liberty to approach the respondent No. 3 within a period of three months and the respondent No. 3 was directed to consider and pass necessary orders as per law within next three months. The writ petitions were accordingly disposed of.
6. The decision rendered in that Writ-A No. 19737 of 2018 was challenged in Special Appeal No. 274 of 2020 in which the following order was passed:-
"26. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the argument advanced from both the sides and looking to the facts that examination was conducted in the year 2018, and, placement/posting being given in the said year and candidates having joined at their respective place of posting in 2018 itself, with the consensus arrived at between the counsels of both the sides as well as consent of the Board, we are proposing to pass the following order :
I. The candidates already selected/posted and working in the respective district of any category, shall not be disturbed.
II. The judgment in favour of the Meritorious Reserved Caste Candidates is not interfered. The petitioners-appellants belonging to Reserved Caste category would submit an application before the Board for change of posting pursuant to the judgment of the learned Single Judge within a period of two months of this judgment. The Board would thereupon process the case and post them as per their choice within two months. This direction would not be applicable in general but limited to the petitioners-appellants whose writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge.
III. The appellants and Intervenors belonging to Open General category shall give option of three districts for their posting which would be considered by the Board within two months. They would be posted in any of the district of their choice subject to availability of the vacancy in the district concerned.
27. The directions given hereinabove are with the consent of the parties thus, it would not be treated to be precedence. If fresh litigation comes, it would not be driven by this judgment."
7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid relief may also be granted to the petitioner.
8. Learned Standing Counsel as well as Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions and submit that the aforesaid case was decided with the consent of the parties and Division Bench of this Court while deciding the aforesaid case has directed that the aforesaid order would not be treated to be precedence and if fresh litigation comes, it would not be driven by the judgment.
9. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents further submit that Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 1048 of 2021 (O&M) Tiwari Manish and others versus State of U.P. and others decided on 8.3.2022 has dismissed the appeal with following direction:-
"7. A perusal of the aforesaid order passed by Division Bench of this Court shows that the relief granted therein was on the basis of the consent between the parties as there were appeals filed by U.P. Basic Shiksha Board, which were disposed of by a consenting order. A direction was also issued that the same shall not be treated as a precedent for the reason that the Court had not given any judgment on the merits of the controversy. The idea behind it was that the issue, which already stood settled, should not be unsettled as the allocation of the districts to the candidates may entail some changes in the process, which had already been concluded, or may affect some of the candidates. The things which have already been settled, cannot be unsettled specially where there are large number of candidates still available, who have not challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Any interference in the present appeals will open a floodgate and will not let the State to finalize the issue of allocation of districts to the selected candidates."
10. Learned counsels for the respondents thus submit that in view of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 1048 of 2021 (O&M) Tiwari Manish and others versus State of U.P. and others and Special Appeal No. 274 of 2020, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for because any indulgence by this Court during the mid sessions would hamper the entire education process and would unsettle the things already settled.
11. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
12. The issue under consideration before this Court is with respect to allocation of the Districts to the candidates, who were selected as Assistant Teachers. The advertisement was issued way back in the year 2018 and the selection process was completed. The candidates, who were selected, have joined at their respective places of posting in the year 2018 itself. The Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 274 of 2020 decided on September 14, 2021 passed a consenting order. It was further observed that the candidates already selected/posted and working in the respective districts of any category shall not be disturbed.
13. The Special Appellate Bench in Special Appeal Defective No. 1048 of 2021 (O&M) Tiwari Manish and others versus State of U.P. and others and Special Appeal No. 274 of 2020 has further laid down that the things already which have already been settled, cannot be unsettled especially where there are large number of candidates still available, who have not challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Any interference in the present appeals will open a floodgate and will not let the State to finalize the issue of allocation of districts to the selected candidates
14. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The aforesaid bunch of writ petitions lack merit and are accordingly dismissed.
15. However, it is left open for the petitioner(s) to move a representation before the Secretary, U.P., Basic Shiksha Parishad, Shiksha Nedeshalaya at Prayagraj clearly setting out his/her/their claim.
16. In the eventuality of filing such a representation, it is expected that the Secretary, U.P., Basic Shiksha Parishad, Shiksha Nedeshalaya at Prayagraj shall consider and decide the representation for reallocation of district, in the end sessions of academic year so that the functioning of the institution may not be affected, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 20.10.2022
Ravi Prakash
(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)
