Sachiv Kumar And 17 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Basic Edu. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 19578 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:49986
 
Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14337 of 2016
 

 
Petitioner :- Sachiv Kumar And 17 Ors.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Basic Edu. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Riyaz Ahmad,Krishna Mohan Pandey,Lalmani Tripathi,Saurabh Yadava,Umeshwar Pratap Pandey,Vijay Bahadur Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,M.M. Asthana
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as well as Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4.

3. Despite the name of Shri M.M. Asthana and Shri Ajay Kumar being shown from the side of respondents, none has appeared on behalf of respondent no.5. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to decide the matter.

4. The instant writ petition has been filed with the prayer of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in Counselling for the appointment of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools, which is fixed for 21.06.2016, which is under process or to be held in near future.

5. This Court vide order dated 17.06.2016, permitted the petitioners to appear in the Counselling in question which is under process or ought to be held in near future but also directed the respondents that the result shall not be declared till the next date of listing.

6. The contentions of Shri Saurabh Yadava, learned counsel for the petitioners states that in pursuance to an interim order of this Court dated 17.06.2016, all the petitioners have appeared in the Counselling but considering the interim order of this Court dated 17.06.2016, the result has not been declared.

7. On the other hand, learned State counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 as well as Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 state that the selection process has already been completed.

8. Be that as it may, the result of the petitioners has not been declared in terms of the interim order of this Court dated 17.06.2016.

9. As the petitioners have already appeared in the Counselling, consequently this Court does not find any reason as to why the result should also not been declared.

10. There is a consensus at the Bar that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.15314 (S/S) of 2016 in Re: Anjali and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others decided on 01.08.2016.

11. Considering the aforesaid consensus, the writ petition is disposed of.

12. It is provided that the petitioners shall be entitled for the benefit of the judgment in the case of Anjali and Another (supra).

Order Date :- 28.7.2023

S. Shivhare