Allahabad High Court
Anurag Kumar Shukla And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 3 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:69893
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 1396 of 2023
Anurag Kumar Shukla And Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Education Lko. And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Durga Prasad Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Ran Vijay Singh
And
WRIT - A No. - 1859 of 2023
Deepesh Kumar Mishra And 25 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Education Lko. And 9 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Durga Prasad Shukla, Vivek Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Ran Vijay Singh
And
WRIT - A No. - 1088 of 2022
Snehlata Mishra And Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic. Edu. Lko. And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Rakesh Kumar Modanwal, Ram Bali Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
And
WRIT - A No. - 8340 of 2020
Shashank Pandey And Ors.
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Secretary Basic Education And Ors.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Shitla Prasad Tripathi, Vijai Shankar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Ajay Kumar
And
WRIT - A No. - 3545 of 2022
Uma Shankar Mishra And Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Basic Edu. And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Rakesh Kumar Modanwal
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Ran Vijay Singh
Court No. - 18
HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 3/U.P. Basic Education Board and Mr. P.K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
Notices to respondent no. 4 to 10 are hereby dispensed with.
Under challenge is the select list dated 05.01.2022 and 01.06.2020 issued by respondent no. 2/Secretary, Basic Education Board.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid list has been incorrectly issued as that is in utter violation of Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2019, issued by Karmik Anubhag-II, Govt. of U.P., thus, the select list is unsustainable.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the UP Basic Education Board submits that the writ petitions were filed before Honorable High Court at Allahabad bearing Writ A No. 4063 of 2020 along with the other connected writ petitions while seeking mandamus, for grant of EWS reservation, whereas, the same was dismissed and against the said order, the Special Appeals were preferred bearing Special Appeal No. 259 of 2024(Shivam Pandey and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and other) along with the other connected Special Appeals, which were dismissed vide the judgment and order dated 08.05.2025. He submitted that now the controversy has been put to rest as the process of recruitment has been commenced and concluded.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition, argued that since the writ petitions at Allahabad were filed with the prayer of mandamus for providing EWS reservation, whereas, in the present writ petitions, the select lists are under challenge and even the affected parties have been impleaded.
During course of arguments, the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the select candidates were not made the party before the Hon'ble Single Judge at Allahabad, though, the same would have no bearing as the matter has already been dealtwith by the Coordinate Division Bench of High Court at Allahabad on the premises that the proceeding has been concluded long back.
Considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, in nutshell, the select list was challenged because of the benefit of EWS reservation was not granted to the present petitioner and the issue has already been dealt with in Writ Petition No. 4063 of 2020 and the benefit of such reservations, under the circumstances, have been denied and the writ petitions have been dismissed. Even in the special appeals, the prayer made by those appellants have been denied.
It emerges that the identically situated persons approached this Court vide Writ A No. 4063 of 2020 alongwith other writ petitions, which have finally been decided by the coordinate bench of the Allahabad High Court, by judgment and order dated 29.02.2024 and the Writ Petitions were dismissed. Being aggrieved, the above-stated petitioners instituted special appeals bearing Special Appeal No. 259 of 2024 alongwith other Special Appeals that too was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 08.05.2025, thus, the identically situated persons were denied the benefit of being considered for EWS reservation regarding the appointment of 69,000 Assistant Teachers.
This Court has noticed that the provision with respect to reservation of EWS came into existence after the advertisement for the post of 69,000 Assistant Teachers was floated. This issue was considered by the learned Single Judge, whereafter, several special appeals were filed and those are dismissed on the ground that the process of recruitment has already been concluded longback and the same position is with the present case.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the present writ petition, the select list is also under challenge and this was not challenged in the writ petition filed earlier in Writ A No. 4063 of 2020(Shivam Pandey And 11 Others), but the same would have no effect on the fate of the present writ petition; The issue which has been dealt with by the division bench and the ratio drawn is that the recruitment process have already been commenced and that too will be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, there is no otherwise reason for maintaining all the connected writ petitions. In these scenarios, the writ petitions lacks merit, thus, are hereby dismissed.
Consigned to records.
(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)
November 3, 2025
Mayank
