Allahabad High Court
Km. Sandhya Singh And Others vs State Of U.P.Thru. Secy. And Others on 8 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50857
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26189 of 2012
Petitioner :- Km. Sandhya Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru. Secy. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Babu Nandan Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.Singh,K.S.Shukla,S.Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27228 of 2012
Petitioner :- Poonam And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.It S Secy. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- V.D.Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- K.S.Shukla,Tej Bhan Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 61561 of 2012
Petitioner :- Smt.Akhileshwari Yadav
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Prakash Srivasta
Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Kumar,Awdhesh Kumar
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1696 of 2011
Appellant :- Smt. Anita Devi
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ganesh Mani,Pritam Singh,R.P.Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1584 of 2013
Petitioner :- Jasmuddin
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Singh,Yashvardhan
Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Kumar,Harendra Yadav,K.S. Shukla
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1174 of 2013
Petitioner :- Smt.Kusum
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.P.Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Kumar,Manu Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1698 of 2013
Petitioner :- Smt Kiran
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- R P Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Kumar,K.S. Shukla,Manu Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1701 of 2013
Petitioner :- Sangeeta
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- R P Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Kumar,K.S. Shukla,Manu Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5480 of 2013
Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Prakash Srivasta
Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Kumar,Manu Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5478 of 2013
Petitioner :- Km.Suneeta Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Prakash Srivasta
Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Kumar,Manu Singh
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 681 of 2013
Appellant :- Km. Shalu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Khare,Y.V. Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.D. Chauhan,S.K. Pandey
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 598 of 2013
Appellant :- Sushila Devi And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- A.P. Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- B.P. Singh,C.S.C.,K.S. Shukla
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 69 of 2013
Appellant :- Smt. Chinta Tiwari
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Dwivedi S.C.,M.C. Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Kumar,Jay Ram Pandey
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1171 of 2013
Petitioner :- Neelam
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.P.Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Kumar,K.S. Shukla,Manu Singh
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4988 of 2013
Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Dixit
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy And Ors.
with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44263 of 2012
Petitioner :- Premila Devi And Others
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Babu Nandan Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- B.P. Singh,K.S. Shukla
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Shri R.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners in leading WRIT - A No. - 26189 of 2012, Shri A.K. Nagvansi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents in all writ petitions. None appears on behalf of petitioners in connected writ petitions.
2. In the leading petition a Coordinate Bench of this Court has noticed conflicts of judgements passed by two Division Bench i.e. Special Appeal (Defective) No.276 of 2011 and Special Appeal (Defective) No.373 of 2011 and therefore, by order dated 25.05.2012 refer following two questions to a larger Bench :-
" (a) Whether mere selection on a date prior to 02.06.2010 will confer a right upon the incumbent to claim appointment and for being sent for training as Shiksha Mitra even after the State Government has imposed a ban on such appointment on 02.06.2010 and the scheme of Shiksha Mitra itself has been dropped by the State Government.
(b) Whether the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Sonika Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) or the law laid down by the Division Benches in the case of Km. Rekha Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) and in the case of Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) is the correct law."
2. The aforesaid questions were later on considered by the Full Bench of this Court and it was answered vide order dated 08.08.2013 in following terms :-
" With regard to question (A), in view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the petitioners were not duly selected and even if they were selected, the selection will not confer a right upon them to claim appointment and for being sent for training as Shiksha Mitra in view of the ban imposed by the State Government by the GO dated 2nd of June, 2010. In other words, persons whose names even if recommended prior to 2.06.2010, will not acquire any right to claim a direction for appointment as Shiksha Mitra.
The question (B) is answered by holding that the case of Sonika Verma was decided on its peculiar facts and therefore, it will have no general application. The law laid down in the cases of Km. Rekha Singh and Pankaj Kumar are correct enunciation of law and we express our concurrence with them."
3. Shri R.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted various arguments however, not able to dispute that the judgement passed by the Full Bench is against the case of the petitioners.
4. Shri A.K. Nagvansi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has submitted that the judgment passed by Full Bench is against the petitioners of other writ petitions also.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, judgement of the Full Bench is very clear that the petitioners in all writ petitions have no right to claim appointment after the ban was enforced.
6. Accordingly, the prayer made in each writ petition can not be allowed and therefore all writ petitions are dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.4.2025
RKM
