Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Smt. Shobha Devi vs State Of U.P. And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 422 ALL

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 422 ALL
Judgement Date : 1 May, 2025

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Shobha Devi 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:68617
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44095 of 2009
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Shobha Devi
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.S.Kushwaha
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
 

1. This writ petition is not accompanied by affidavit of petitioner, therefore, Court is not aware about her present age.

2. Petitioner has challenged an information given under RTI Act on 13.04.2009 wherein it has been mentioned that age for appointment of Assistant Teacher is 18-35 years and a B.T.C. Course passed from State of Uttarakhand is not recognized in State of U.P.

3. In this writ petition, Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for petitioner has not able to show any specific averment how information given under RTI Act is contrary or against any provision of law.

4. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a 3 Judges' Bench of this Court in Jitendra Kumar Soni and others vs. State of U.P. and others, Manu/UP/0907/2010 has held that for purpose of Special B.T.C. Course, it is not open to State or the State authorities to exclude the students, who have obtained degree/ diploma/ certificate in LT/ B.P.Ed./ D.P.Ed./ C.P.Ed.from Institutions/ Universities established by law situate at place outside the State of U.P. and duly recognized by the N.C.T.E., from applying either for the Special B.T.C. Course or B.T.C. Course, therefore, said judgment is not applicable in present case.

5. In view of above, since much water has flown and petitioner must have attained age of superannuation, therefore, even if claim of petitioner has some substance, due to pendency of this writ petition for more than 16 years, it has become meaningless and therefore relief sought cannot be granted that petitioner cannot be appointed at such belated stage as Assistant Teacher.

6. Accordingly, writ petition has no force, hence, dismissed.

Order Date :- 1.5.2025

Sinha_N.

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter