Allahabad High Court
Uma Kumari vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 5 April, 2023
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4762 of 2023
Petitioner :- Uma Kumari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Naresh Chandra Pal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Bilas Yadav
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Naresh Chandra Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Sri Ram Bilas Yadav, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner in response to the Advertisement dated 05.12.2018 inviting online applications from the eligible and qualified candidates w.e.f. 06.12.2018 for filling up 69000 posts of Assistant Teachers, applied and appeared in the examination held on 06.01.2019 as a reserved category (sc) candidate. Petitioner obtained 89 marks out of 150. The qualifying marks in the said examination was 90 out of 150. It is the case of the petitioner that she is entitled to the benefit of the judgment passed in Special Appeal (D) No.343 of 2021. If the petitioner is extended the benefit of 01 mark she will stand qualified.
It is under such circumstances that the petitioner has claimed the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to consider the grievances of the petitioner for appointment of Assistant Teacher granting additional one mark and the petitioner may be selected as Assistant Teacher in selection of 69000 Assistant Teacher Recruitment 2019.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of 01 mark as claimed by her. The benefit of the decision was available to either the appellants in the Special Appeal (D) No. 343 of 2021 or to the petitioners whose writ petition assailing the result and allotment of marks was pending. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the Special Appeal (D) No.343 of 2021 nor her writ petition was pending on the date the decision in Special Appeal (D) No.343 of 2021 was passed and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondent Nos.1 & 2 as also learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 have pointed out that the petitioner was sitting on the fence awaiting the outcome of the special appeal. She filed the writ petition only when the appeal was decided granting limited benefit to the writ petitioners whose writ petitions were pending on the date of the order and to appellants of the special appeal.
It is also submitted that this Court in a bunch of writ petition leading amongst them, being Writ-A No. 836 of 2023 has dealt with the identical issue as involved in the present writ petition and after considering the ratio of the decision rendered in Special Appeal (D) No. 343 of 2021(Abhishek Srivastava and 14 others versus State of U.P. and others) as also in Special Appeal No. 184 of 2022 [Km. Shalini versus State of U.P. through Secretary (Basic Education) & 6 others] decided on 4.5.2022, Special Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Sandhya Singh versus State of U.P. and others) decided on 21.1.2022, Special Appeal Defective No. 1041 of 2021 (Harikesh Kumar Yadav versus State of U.P. & others) decided on 16.5.2022, Special Appeal (Defective) No. 123 of 2022 (Avneesh Singh & others versus State of U.P. and others) decided on 6.5.2022 has proceeded to hold that the writ petition lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed.
I have gone through the pleadings of the present writ petition and find that the issue involved in the writ petition is identical to the one raised in the bunch of writ petitions leading amongst them, being Writ-A No.836 of 2023. Following the dictum of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, I find that there is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.4.2023
pks
