Back
RAJAN ROY
Pradeep Kumar Shukla – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajan Roy, J.
Heard Shri Manoj Kumary Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Shri Prashant Arora, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 and Shri Jai Narain Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5.
2. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 31.12.2019 passed by the Basic Siksha Adhikari, Amethi contained in Annexure No. 26 to the writ petition. A writ of mandamus has also sought to the Basic Siksha Adhikari to issue formal order of approval of appointment of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher (Basic) and to release their salary w.e.f. 07.12.2017 and also to pay their salary along with arrears of salary from the said date with all admissible allowances and increments as and when they fall due.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that a vacancy of Assistant Teacher (Basic) fell vacant in the Institution of opposite party no. 5 on 30.06.2012. Another vacancy on the post of Assistant Teacher (Basic) fell vacant on 31.03.2017. On 18.04.2017 information about these vacancies was sent to the Basic Educati
The appointments were found to be void ab initio due to the lack of essential qualifications and the flawed selection process.
Failure to communicate a decision within the prescribed period leads to deemed approval of appointment, despite procedural lapses.
The recruitment process for educational appointments must be conducted fairly, transparently, and in accordance with statutory provisions to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and e....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher was made against a substantive vacancy, entitling the petitioner to regularization u....
Point of law: If the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4), he shall be deemed to have accorded a....
Point of law: If the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4), he shall be deemed to have accorded a....
Valid appointments made under existing rules cannot be retroactively invalidated by later amendments or determinations of sanctioned strength.
The court upheld the necessity of verifying the genuineness of appointments in grant-in-aid institutions, emphasizing that forged documents cannot establish entitlement to salary from public funds.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
