Allahabad High Court
Rekha Pal And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 13 January, 2023
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15326 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rekha Pal And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.
The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent no.2 to take the fresh decision and issue necessary direction to the District Basic Education Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School in the District Lakhimpur Kheri against the vacancies for which petitioner has been selected."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner participated in the examination conducted for the post of Assistant Teacher against the advertisement issued in the year 2016, and her claim was rejected on the ground that she had completed her two years diploma course in Education Course from Madhya Pradesh. He further submits that controversy in question was decided by this Court in Writ A No.47490 of 2017 (Km. Pallavi Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.) vide order and judgment dated 12.12.2017 and the benefit was extended to Kumari Pallavi, thereafter, petitioner also approached before this Court by filing Writ A No.25102 of 2018 and the same was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to take decision in the matter on merit in accordance with the law but case of the petitioner was not considered and benefit of Km. Pallavi (Supra) was not extended to the petitioner, therefore, Contempt Petition No.2243 of 2020 was filed and notice was issued to the Secretary, Basic Education Board, Prayagraj. He further submits that vide order dated 7.7.2022, claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Secretary, Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, in the most mechanical manner with the observation that benefit of the judgment of Km. Pallavi (Supra) was extended only to the petitioners of that case, therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary.
Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has not approached, in time before the Court, as the Writ A No.47490 of 2017 was decided on 12.12.2017 and the benefit was extended only to the petitioner of that case. She also placed written instructions duly signed by Secretary, Basic Education Board, Prayagraj and submits that after selection to the post of Assistant Teacher for the year 2016, three other selections have already been concluded by the Basic Education Board for 12,460, 68,500 and 69,000 posts of Assistant Teachers and all the vacant posts were carry forwarded, therefore, by the efflux of time, the petitioners lost their grievance and no relief can be granted to the petitioners, at this stage.
Learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors. reported in 2014 4 UPLBEC 2927, and submitted that if the judgement of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgement or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer either laches and delays or acquiescence.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the petition as well as judgment passed by this Court in the case of Km. Pallavi (supra), as it is evident that Kumari Pallavi filed petition before this Court within time prior to starting other selections for the vacant post, as it is undisputed fact that petitioner filed writ petition before this Court on 26.11.2018 when subsequent selections for the post of Assistant Teacher were started and the posts were carry forwarded and petitioner also failed to explain the laches and delay. In such circumstances, there is no illegality in the order passed by competent authority, therefore, writ petition is misconceived and dismissed.
In view of the above, writ petition is misconceived and accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.1.2023
Gaurav
