Jyoti Singh And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 2693 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Jyoti Singh And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 29 July, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:126315
 
Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23646 of 2018
 

 
Petitioner :- Jyoti Singh And 7 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar,Manish Singh,Seemant Singh,Sushma Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
with 
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4599 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Raj Kumar And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
with
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7071 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Nisha Rajaram And 16 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Umesh Chandra Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
with
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13691 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Sarita Jaiswal And 11 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Umesh Chandra Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Present writ petition has been filed for following relief:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners in pursuance of their selection already concluded by the opposite parties in second round of counseling held on 13.06.2016 under Mirzapur Region, Mirzapur in pursuance of the advertisement dated 29.09.2014.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to join as Trained Graduate Teacher/L.T. Grade Teacher.

(iii)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter/Government Order dated 05.12.2016 passed by Joint Secretary Govt. of U.P. Secondary Education Dept. Civil Secretariat U.P. at Lucknow.

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter/Government Order dated 20.12.2016 passed by Director of Secondary Education, Uttar Pradesh (L.T.) Anubhag, Allahabad. "

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact, a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 399 of 2018 has decided and set aside the orders passed by the State-respondents with direction to the appointing authority to accord appointment to the appellant-petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher, if they are otherwise, eligible. The order of Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 399 of 2018 is as under:

"Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Ajit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State.

By an advertisement dated 27th September, 2014 applications were invited from the eligible aspirants to be considered for appointment as Assistant Teachers LT Grade in Government Inter College for the year 2014-15. The appellant considering himself eligible to be considered for appointment on the post aforesaid, submitted an application and he also claimed reservation being a person differently abled. Suffice to mention that the candidature of the appellant-petitioner was considered against the vacancies assigned to be filled in from the visually impaired persons.

After holding a regular process of selection, a list of selected incumbents was declared, wherein name of the appellant-petitioner was shown at Serial No.5 in his own category with 68.61 merit marks. The persons who were at higher pedestal than the appellant-petitioner in select list, for one or other reason did not chose to join the services and, therefore, the appellant-petitioner claimed for appointment as Assistant Teacher being standing in merit.

On being failed to have any positive response from the respondents, he approached this Court by way of filing a petition for writ i.e. Writ A-No.67576 of 2015. This petition came to be disposed of under an order dated 7th January, 2016 with a direction to the Joint Director of Education, Aligarh Region, Aligarh to consider claim of the appellant-petitioner and pass appropriate order expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks. On being failed to get the directions given by writ Court, the appellant-petitioner preferred a contempt petition and during pendency of that, the case of the appellant-petitioner was considered by the Joint Director of Education, Aligarh Region, Aligarh. By an order dated 25th June, 2016, the Joint Director of Education, Aligarh Region, Aligarh held that the persons standing at higher merit in the select list selected as Assistant Teacher though have not joined service but till having their specific denial to join services in Aligarh Region appointment orders are required to be issued in their favour and case of the appellant-petitioner could have been considered only after getting response from the persons so selected and who are on higher rank in merit list.

The petitioner again approached this Court by way of filing a petition for writ i.e. Writ A-No.34548 of 2016 with assertion that the persons standing at higher merit in the select list have already been joined the services in other regions and, therefore, he is entitled to have appointment being placed in the select list of the incumbents selected as a consequence of a valid process of selection. The petition for writ aforesaid came to be disposed of under an order dated 28th July, 2016 with a direction to the Joint Director of Education, Aligarh Region, Aligarh to ensure that appointment process in question be brought to its logical conclusion in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months.

Inspite of the directions aforesaid, no steps were taken by the respondents. Therefore, the appellant-petitioner preferred a Contempt Application (Civil) No.625 of 2016 wherein notices were issued to the alleged contemnors with expectation that they will execute the order passed by this Court before next date of listing of the application. The Joint Director of Education, Aligarh Region, Aligarh again considered and decided claim of the appellant-petitioner under an order dated 21st January, 2017.

The Joint Director of Education, Aligarh Region, Aligarh arrived at the conclusion that the State Government in its order dated 5th December, 2016 has already cancelled the process of selection of the year 2014 and, therefore, no appointment can be accorded to the appellant-petitioner. The Joint Director of Education, Aligarh Region, Aligarh also referred that as a consequence to amendment in the relevant rules, the process of selection too has been altered and, therefore, appointment cannot be accorded to the appellant-petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-petitioner again approached this Court by way of filing a petition for writ that came to be dismissed. The writ petition aforesaid was dismissed in light of the judgment given in the case of Himanshu Shukla and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, Writ A- No.48664 of 2017.

In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner is that the case of Himanshu Shukla and another (supra) is having no application in the case in hand. It is stated that in the case of Himanshu Shukla and another (supra) the Court was examining entirely a different issue relating to applications of the amended provisions pertaining to the vacancies of the earlier years including the vacancies advertised under an advertisement dated 19th October, 2016. It is asserted that so far as the present appellant-petitioner is concerned, he faced the process of selection pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 2014 and that came to be concluded by way of issuance of a select list, followed by the orders of appointments.

On going through the record, we are in agreement with counsel for the appellant that so far as the case of the present appellant-petitioner is concerned that relates to the process of selection initiated in the year 2014 and concluded by grant of appointments to several persons, including the persons who were at higher pedestal vis-a-vis the appellant-petitioner in the select list. The appellant-petitioner claimed appointment with an assertion that due to non-joining of the persons at higher merit the vacancy exists and that is required to be satisfied by extending appointment to him. In the case of Himanshu Shukla and another (supra) the issue was entirely different. In the case aforesaid, an advertisement was issued and the process of selection was initiated. However, before completion of that, the same was cancelled and a fresh advertisement was issued inviting applications from eligible candidates as per amended provisions of Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Service Rules, 1983.

In light of whatever stated above, we are having no doubt that learned single Bench erred while dismissing the petition in light of the judgment given in the case of Himanshu Shukla and another (supra).

At this stage, we would have remanded the matter for its adjudication to learned single Bench. However, looking to the fact that the appellant-petitioner is in que for appointment from last several years and he has approached this Court for redressal of his grievance by two petitions earlier also, with the consent of the learned counsel for rival parties, we consider it appropriate to examine merits of the case advanced before us.

As already stated, the appellant-petitioner was placed in the select list drawn by the selecting agency pertaining to visually impaired candidates. The appellant-petitioner in the list aforesaid stood at Serial No.5. It is not in dispute that the persons at higher pedestal in merit than the appellant-petitioner did not chose to join service in the Department of Education, Aligarh Region, Aligarh. The vacancies for which the process of selection was conducted as such remained unfilled. The appellant-petitioner being placed immediately after the incumbents higher in merit, who did not joined service, should have been accorded appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. The respondents denied appointment to the appellant-petitioner on the count that the rules came to be amended in the year 2017 and as such there being a change in process of selection no appointment could have been given.

We failed to understand as to how the amendment introduced in the year 2017 has been made applicable to the concluded process of selection of the year 2014. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex-Captain K.S. Arora and another Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 1984 (3) SCC 281 held that the rights already accrued cannot be disturbed by any subsequent amendment. The case of the petitioner, as a matter of fact stands on a better pedestal. In the case in hand, the rules were amended in the year 2017 and those are not having any retrospective application and as such the amended provisions are having no adverse effect on the claim of the appellant-petitioner who cam to be selected under a process of selection initiated in the year 2014 and came to be concluded.

Appointments were already accorded to the selected incumbents subsequent thereto. As such, the reason given by the respondents for not extending appointment to the appellant is absolutely non-existent and flimsy. The appointments on the post of Assistant Teacher should have been given to the appellant-petitioner as the persons at higher rank to him in the select list did not chose to join the services within the time limit prescribed. The right accrued in favour of the appellant-petitioner being placed in the select list in no manner could have been subjected to any adverse injury on the count of the amendments introduced in the year 2017.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The order impugned passed by learned single Bench is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The respondent Appointing Authority is directed to accord appointment to the appellant-petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher, if he is otherwise eligible, at earliest as far as possible within a period of one month from today. No order to cost."

4. Following the said observations, subsequently, number of writ petitions were disposed of like Writ A Nos. 15171 of 2021 on 16.02.2023 and Writ A No. 15125 of 2021 on 17.2.2023.

5. Considering the submissions and also on perusal of the order passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 399 of 2018, this writ petition is also disposed of on same terms.

Order Date :- 29.7.2025

Noman

(Donadi Ramesh, J.)