Allahabad High Court
Virendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 18 September, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:59704
Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5748 of 2023
Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. An application for dismissal of the writ petition filed today in Court is taken on record.
2. Shri B.K. Singh, learned counsel before arguing the matter states that the he is not pressing relief no.1 as prayed for in the writ petition and confines his prayer to permit the petitioner to join as an Assistant Teacher on the post of which the petitioner was working.
3. In view of the said statement, this Court proceeded to hear the matter.
4. Shri B.K. Singh, learned counsel argues that the respondents are not even permitting the petitioner to join as an Assistant Teacher despite there being a categorical directions issued by the Authorized Controller as well as Joint Director and DIOS as contained in the writ petition.
5. An application has been filed today on behalf of respondent no.6 seeking dismissal of the writ petition mainly on the ground that the claim of the petitioner for permitting to work as an adhoc headmaster did not merit acceptance in view of the judgment passed by this Court dated 25.05.2022 in Writ - A No.3018 of 2022. He further argues that certain proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that no inquiry is going on against the petitioner.
7. Without going into the contentions with regard to the pendency of any inquiry with which the present petition is not concerned, there is no reason as to why the petitioner should not be permitted to join as an Assistant Teacher in view of the claim made by the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner himself was working as an Assistant Teacher with the respondents.
8. In view of the fact that learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the petitioner himself is not coming forward to join as an Assistant Teacher, the present petition is disposed off directing respondent no.6 to permit the petitioner to join as an Assistant Teacher in the institution.
9. However, the respondents would be at liberty to take such steps as may be advised under law for which the Court is not passing any order at present.
10. It is made clear that in view of the fact that the petitioner himself is claiming that he is not staking the claim for the post of officiating headmaster, the present case would be confined only to his claim to work as an Assistant Teacher in the institution in question.
11. In case respondent no.6 still does not permit the petitioner to join as an Assistant Teacher, respondent no.3 shall take steps as are available under law for enforcing the joining of the petitioner and for payment of salary to which the petitioner shall be found entitled as an Assistant Teacher.
Order Date :- 18.9.2023
nishant
