Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Smt Reena – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
WRIT A. No. 18923 of 2025
Decided On : 06-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for certiorari and related orders. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. grounds for contesting dismissal highlight procedural lapses. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. introduction of essential statutory provisions. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. disciplinary jurisdiction tied to employer-employee relationship. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. eligibility dictates based on rule 12 of the rules. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. inapplicability of conduct rules pre-appointment. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 7. misconduct distinct from eligibility issues. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. regulatory framework focuses on eligibility at appointment. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 9. assessment of eligibility is critical to eligibility under rule 12. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 10. rule 12 concerns eligibility, not misconduct. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 11. clarification on punishment and eligibility distinction. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 12. clarification of conduct rules concerning misconduct. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 13. finding on ineligibility for appointment. (Para 39) |
| 14. order quashing termination and remitting for reconsideration. (Para 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT :
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. Grijesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashi Prakash Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State. Dr. Shiv Bahadur Singh, learned counsel has assisted the Court on the legal issue.
2. The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs:-
"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned dismissal order dated 12.11.2025 (Annexure no.1 to this writ petition) passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Mau, i.e. by the respondent no.3.
2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding / directing the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Mau, i.e. by the respondent no.3.
3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding / directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and not to interfere in his peaceful functioning as Assistant Teacher and to pay her salary regularly month to month as and when it falls due.
4. Issue any other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court made deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."
3. Placing brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected and appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a primary school on 07.11.2015. Subsequently, on the basis of a complaint made by one Rampravesh Rajbhar, alleging that the petitioner had performed marriage with one Arvind Yadav, who already had a living wife, the impugned order has been passed relying upon the provisions of Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1981"), which is arbitrary, illegal, and unreasonable.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the services of the petitioner have been terminated without holding any detailed disciplinary inquiry, as required under law. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that the first wife of Arvind Yadav was alive at the time when the petitioner performed marriage with him. Even assuming the applicability of the Rules, 1981, the alleged charge does not prescribe termination as a major punishment under the said Rules. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of this Court in the case of Balram Panwar vs. State of U.P. through Secretary, Nyay Vibhag, U.P. & Another Writ-A No. 5111 of 2022, decided on 18.09.2024, as well as the interim order dated 05.11.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 11264 of 2024 Ghanshy
AI
Eligibility for appointment under Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 is determined by marital status at the time of appointment, rendering actions taken again....
Teacher training qualification mandatory at appointment time under statutory rules; subsequent acquisition does not validate; executive resolutions cannot override rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the qualifications required for appointment as a trained Teacher in Secondary School do not necessarily mandate a specific graduation subject,....
The qualifications for appointment must be judged by the rules in force at the time of selection, not by subsequent amendments.
Scope of interference with the order of the Tribunal by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India exercising extra-ordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction, has its own limi....
The court affirmed that appointments made prior to new qualification rules remain valid, emphasizing continuity of service and entitlement to salary for teachers who later acquired necessary qualific....
Employment and Service matter - Assistant Teachers - Compassionate appointments - Order of cancellation of appointment - compassionate appointment cannot be given dehors statutory provisions only in ....
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
