Allahabad High Court

Smt. Pushpa Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 1 May, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68990
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3027 of 2007
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Pushpa Singh
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.J. Munir,Ran Vijay Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.N. Pathak,R.S. Prasad,Surendra Kumar Singh,Virendra Kumar Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sri Vikrant Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K.Singh Nagwanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. Petitioner's appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra was set-aside by the impugned order dated 1.9.2006 and her representation was rejected on ground that Sri Vijay Kumar Yadav (respondent no.5) had worked for longer period as Anudeshak than the petitioner, therefore, he was entitled to be appointed in preference to the petitioner ignoring that petitioner has secured more equality points.

3. This Court has passed following interim order on 2.2.2007 whereby the impugned order was stayed:

"Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1,2 and 3. Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 are represented by Sri R.S. Prasad Advocate.

Issue notice to respondent no. 5 fixing a date in the third week of March, 2007. Petitioner to take steps within one week from today. All the respondents may file counter affidavit by the next date fixed.

List on the date fixed.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi, rejecting the representation of the petitioner on the ground that Sri Vijay Kumar Yadav had worked for longer period as Anudeshak viz-a-viz the petitioner, and, therefore, he is entitled to be appointed in preference to the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra, thus, contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Kanti Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P. Special Appeal No. 46 of 2006 decided on 15.01.2007, specifically in the circumstances when the petitioner has secured more quality point marks than Sri Vijay Kumar Yadav.

Petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim order.

Till the next date of listing operation of the order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi shall remain stayed."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on basis of said interim order, petitioner is still working, though this writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 9.1.2023 however, it was subsequently restored on 6.10.2023.

5. Petitioner has declared her age in the year 2007 as 37 years and presently she must be around 55 years.

6. None appears on behalf of respondent no.5.

7. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that counter affidavit has been filed by the said respondent no.5 as well as by the State respondents also.

8. The Court is of view that the circular was wrongly read against the petitioner since it would have a prospective effect.

9. Otherwise also, this Court is of the view that since the petitioner has already enjoyed interim order for last 18 years and that undisputedly she has more quality marks than other candidates and she has left few years of service, therefore, at this stage to disturb her services, would not only be against the interest of justice, but against her family members also.

10. In the aforesaid circumstances, by making the interim order absolute, this writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 1.5.2025