Anchita Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 7279 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Anchita Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 27 May, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90214
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4984 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Anchita Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mangla Prasad Rai (Senior Adv.)
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Brijesh Narayan, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.

2. Petitioner has applied for appointment on the post of Trainee Teacher/ Assistant Teacher in District Sonbhadra in pursuance of Government Order dated 27.09.2011 for making selection of 72,825 posts of Trainee Teachers / Assistant Teachers in different Primary Schools in different Districts of State of U.P.

3. Petitioner has come up with a case that she was appointed vide order dated 17.04.2015 on probation with a condition to undergo six months training (three months each training of Practical and Theoretical). It is the case of petitioner that she has undergone Theoretical Training of ten days but she was not able to continue it since she was in advance stage of pregnancy and was under treatment for a very long period and after about two years on 15.05.2017 she appeared to undergo remaining training. A recommendation was made by Principal, DIET on 15.05.2017 and according to her from 22.05.2017 to 22.08.2017 she has completed three months Theoretical Training and she has to give her joining at respective Primary School for Practical Training of further three months, however, she was not allowed to join.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in aforesaid circumstances, petitioner has preferred Writ-A No. 7933 of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.03.2018 that representation pending before Principal, DIET be decided, however, her representation was rejected vide order dated 11.05.2018, which is impugned in present writ petition and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:

?3- ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ???????? ??? ????????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ?

?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???????? ??????-3465/79-5-2014-14 (10)/2010 ?????? ?????? 27 ???, 2014 ??? ?? ??? ????????????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ??? 72825 ????? ???? ?? ????????? ???????? ?? ???/???????? ?? ???? ??, ????? ?????? 12 ??? ???????? ?? ?? "????????????? ??? ?????? ????????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ???????? ??? ?????????? ????????? ??????? ??????/??????? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ????????????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??????????? ????????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? ??? ???? ????????" ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????-13 ??? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ??-"????????? ??????? ??????, ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ????????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ????????? ????? ??????? ?? ????????? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???????????? ?? ??????? ???? ???????? 1981 ?????? ??????? ??? ??????? ?????? ???????? 2008 ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ??? ????????/?????? ?? ?????? ?

???????? ??? ????????????? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ?????????? ????????? ??????? ???? ???????? ??, ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????????? ????????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??, ???? ???? ?????????? ????????? ????? ???? ??????????? ????????? ??? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ??????? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? 22-05-2017 ?? ?????? 22-08-2017 ?? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ???? ?? ???????????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ????????? ?????? ??? 2011 ?? ????????? ??????????? ????????? ???? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????, ???????????, ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ????????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???????? ????????? ???? ?????? 20-05-2017 ?? ???????? ?????????, ????, ???????????,, ??????? ?????? ????????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?? "???? ?????????, ????????? ?? ??????????? ????????? ??? ???????? ???? ????????? ????" ???? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ????????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ????????? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ????????? ??? ????? ???? ????????? ??? ????????, ?????? ?????, ???? ???????????, ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ????????????/????? ?????/1394-96/2017-18 ?????? 28-08-2017 ?????? ???? ????????? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??????????? ????????, ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ????????????/ ??????????/3349/2017-18 ?????? 13-02-2018 ?????? ???? ????????? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ???, ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????, ???????????, ??????? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ??????????? ?? ???????? ?????? ????? ?????, ?????, ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ????

?? ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ????????? ?????????? ? ??????????? ????????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ???????? ??????????? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ????????????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ??????????? ?????? 28-03-2018 ?? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ?"

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that reasons assigned in impugned order that petitioner has not undergone three months Theoretical Training and her presence was wrongly shown, was an incorrect finding, which was returned contrary to record. He further submits that petitioner is still ready to undergo training and if necessary she can undergo Theoretical Training afresh. Learned counsel also refers that in terms of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others, 2017(5) SCC 246 petitioner?s appointment is still protected as her case has fallen under 66,655 posts of Teachers and for reference para 19 of the judgment is reproduced hereinafter:

?19. We have been informed that 66,655 teachers have already been appointed in pursuance of the interim orders of this Court. Having regard to the entirety of circumstances, we are not inclined to disturb the same. We make it clear that the state is at liberty to fill up the remaining vacancies in accordance with law after issuing a fresh advertisement.?

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents has supported impugned order that petitioner has committed a fraud, therefore, equity is against her.

7. I have considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

8. It is admitted case of petitioner that initially she has undergone Theoretical Training between 24.04.2015 to 08.05.2015 only and thereafter she has not come forward to complete her training atleast for two years without any reason or prayer to resume training. It is further admitted case of petitioner that in the year 2017 she has approached the concerned respondent by communication dated 15.05.2017 before Principal, DIET to resume her training. There is an endorsement that she was permitted to do so. However, there is no material on record or certificate from said respondent that she has undergone three months Theoretical Training.

9. The only document in support of stand of petitioner that she has completed three months Theoretical Training in the year 2017 is the copy of attendance sheet of May, June, July and August, 2017. However, it is not verified by Principal, DIET, therefore, without a certificate from Principal, DIET it cannot be accepted that petitioner has undergone Theoretical Training and in this regard Court takes note of above referred relevant part of impugned order as there is a specific finding that "???? ???? ??? ????????? ?????? ??? 2011 ?? ????????? ??????????? ????????? ???? ?????? ??? ????????? ???????, ???????????, ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???".

10. Court also takes note of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Principal, DIET and for reference paras 10 and 13 thereof are reproduced hereinafter:

?10. That the contents of paragraph no.12 of the writ petition as stated are not admitted hence denied. In reply thereto it is submitted that in the office record of Principal DIET, Sonebhadra, it was recorded that the petitioner was present for theoretical training from 22-05-2017 to 22-08-2017 but during the said period. However, during this period the theoretical training of Trainee Assistant Teachers-2011 was not conducted by the DIET, Sonebhadra which fact has been informed by the Teachers of DIET, Sonebhadra in writing. It is relevant to submit here that the then Patal Assistant Sri Chandrasen Jeet Prajapati has wrongly entered the presence of the petitioner on the attendance register without there being any training held by the DIET Sonebhadra. It is further submitted that since the petitioner had not completed her theoretical training, the Principal DIET, Sonebhadra has not relieved the petitioner for practical training.

13. That the contents of paragraph nos.21,22,23 and 24 of the writ petition as stated are not admitted hence denied. In reply thereto it is submitted that the petitioner had attended the theoretical training only for 08 days thereafter she remained absent for 2 years without any information However, with the collusion of Patal Assistant of DIET, Sonebhadra Sri Chandra Sen Jeet Prajapati, she has managed to record her attendance in the attendance register and on the basis of same she has obtained order from Principal, DIET, Sonbhadra allowing her to appear in theoretical training. It is further submitted that in compliance of order dated 16-03-2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.7933 of 2018, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Principal, DIET, Robertsganj, Sonbhadra vide order dated 11-05-2018 after going through the entire documents and files available on record.?

11. Petitioner has filed rejoinder to above counter affidavit and aforesaid paras of counter affidavit are replied in paras 10 and 13 of rejoinder affidavit, which are reproduced hereinafter:

?10. That the contents of paragraph No. 10 of the counter affidavit are denied while the contents of paragraph No. 12 of the writ petition are being reiterated, in reply it is hereby submitted that petitioner has completed 3 months of theoretical training at DIET, Robertsganj, Sohnbhadra, inasmuch as the office record of Principal, DIET Robertsganj, Sohnbhadra also states that theoretical training from 22.05.2017 to 22.08.2017 nas been undertaken by the petitioner. The answering respondent is only relying upon the information given by the teachers of DIET, Robertsganj, Sohnbhadra in writing that no theoretical training was conducted by the DIET Sohnbhadra for the aforesaid period. Petitioner has no concern with the dispute between the Patal Assistant Shri Chandrasenjeet Prajapati with the Principal, DIET Robertsganj, Sohnbhadra. If it is so, then criminal case ought to have been registered by the Principal, DIET Robertsganj, Sohnbhadra against the Patal Assistant Shri Chandrasenjeet Prajapati. Even the Principal, DIET Robertsganj, Sohnbhadra was not issued any notice to the Patal Assistant Shri Chandrasenjeet Prajapati through the appointing authority of the aforesaid Patal Assistant. It is also evident by the letter dated 26.03.2013 written by the aforesaid Patal Assistant to the Principal, DIET Robertsganj, Sohnbhadra to issue the clarification with regard to the petitioner by issuing clarification letter through his appointing authority but no initiative was taken by the Principal, DIET Robertsganj, Sohnbhadra seeking information either from Shri Prabhu Ram Chauhan the then Principal, DIET Robertsganj, Sohnbhadra nor Shri Chandrasenjeet Prajapati the then Patal Assistant of the Principai, DIET Robertsganj, Sohnbhadra. Till date no criminal cases has been registered against the aforesaid persons named above which means there appears to be some dispute going on between the then Patal Assistant and the Principal, DIET Robertsganj, Sohnbhadra. Thus, the averments made in para under reply with regard to non-completion of theoretical training at Principal, DIET Robertsganj, Sohnbhadra cannot be treated as correct.

13. That the contents of paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit denied while the contents of paragraph Nos. 21 to 25 of the writ petition are being reiterated in reply it is hereby submitted that by no stretch of imagination Principal, DIET Robertsganj, Sohnbhadra can say that petitioner had not completed theoretical training of 3 months when the records of the DIET clearly provides the same. The impugned order dated 11.05.2018 is based on no fact and evidence rather appears to be some personnel grudge with the then Patal Assistant against her, no action has been taken by the Principal, DIET Robertsganj, Sohnbhadra, even no criminal case has been registered against him. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 11.05.2018 is without reply of Shri Prabhu Ram Chauhan the then Principal, DIET Robertsganj, Sohnbhadra and the then Patal Assistant Shri Chandrasenjeet Prajapati as such the impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.?

12. Aforesaid explanation does not inspire any confidence. Petitioner is trying to impose responsibility on respondents without making any clarification or placing any document that she has undergone training as well as there is no specific denial of finding that within aforesaid period, no training was conducted.

13. In aforesaid circumstances, the Court is of the view that petitioner firstly herself remained absent for about two years and thereafter has tried to prepare a document to show that she has undergone Theoretical Training and since there are material on record which are against petitioner?s claim, which are not reverted with any specific material or ground and as referred above any vague explanation cannot be accepted, therefore, findings returned in impugned order are justified and there is no reason to take any otherwise view.

14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 27.5.2025

AK