Ram Sharan Maurya vs State of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 663

UDAY UMESH LALIT, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
Ram Sharan Maurya – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties:Raghvendra Singh, Aishwarya Bhati, Harish Pandey, Mukesh Verma, Yash Pal Dhingra, Parminder Singh Bhullar, Abhishek Kishore, Tanya Agarwal, Ramesh Kumar Mishra, Mukesh Verma, Raj Singh Rana, Fauzia Shakil, Sanskriti Pathak, Gaurav Aggarwal, Talha Abdul Rahman, Kushagra Pandey, Mohd. Shaz Khan, Udit Konkanthankar, L.P. Mishra, Talha Abdul Rahman, Amit Singh Bhadauria, Kushagra Pandey, Mohd. Shaz Khan, Udit Konkanthankar, Uday Prakash, Raghvendra Shukla, Ramjee Pandey, Nishit Agrawal, Harsh Mishra, Shrey Kapoor, Abdul Kalam, Abdul Qadir Abbasi, Meenesh Dubey, Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Devvrat, Subas Ray, Swati Setia, Abhijit Banerjee, Aditya Kr. Dubey, R.K. Singh, Neeraj Singh, Kumar Gaurav, Ritu Reniwal, Robin Khokhar, Sandeep Jindal, Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, R.K. Singh, Neeraj Singh, Ritu Reniwal, Kumar Gaurav, Shalu Sharma, L.P. Mishra, R.K. Singh, Mishra Amit Kumar Bahaduriya, Kumar Gaurav, Ritu Reniwal, Tom Joseph, Sudhir Naagar, Roop Choudhary, Mohit Singh Savita Naagar, Mohd. Saquib Siddiqui, R.K. Singh, Neeraj Singh, Kumar Gaurav, Ritu Reniwal, Aman Rastogi, Sanjay Rastogi, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Shakeel Ahmed, Sheeba Fakhruddin Adil, Anupam Bhati, Malvika Raghawan, H.S. Mann, Pranshu Kaushal, Nakul Chaudhary, Kausar Raza Faridi, D.P. Shukla, Prashant Shukla, Jugul Kishore Gupta, Shahbaaz Jameel, R.K. Singh, Neeraj Singh, Kumar Gaurav, Ritu Reniwal, Anzu K. Varkey, Prashant Shukla, Shreya Mishra, Suyash Srivastava, Anurag Tripathi, Madhumay Mishra, Satyajeet Kumar, Brij Bhushan K. Jauhari, Ajay Bansal, Gaurav Yadav, Harsh Mahan, Lalit Chahar, O.P. Singh, Mohit Yadav, Purnima Jauhari, Anand Nandan, Satya Mitra, M.M. Singh, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Tanya Agarwal, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Tanya Agarwal, Mrs. Shubhangi Tuli, Abhinav Ramkrishna, Anand Nandan, Rakesh Dahiya, Tarun Gupta, Rakesh Mishra, Vikas Kumar, Krishnanand Pandeya, Amit Pawan, Binay Kumar Das, Sachin Sharma, Akshat Srivastava, Vinod Kumar Tewari, Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Priyank Upadhyay, Piyush Dwivedi, Akshay Verma, Saroj Tripathi, Satish Pandey, Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, Tanima Kishore, Lubna Naaz, Krishan Singh Chauhan, Advocates

Judgement Key Points

The Court recognized that the State possesses the authority to establish stringent criteria for teacher recruitment to ensure the selection of meritorious candidates. This includes the power to set high standards, such as specific qualification requirements, to maintain the quality of education. Furthermore, the Court acknowledged that if the State considers the use of UDISE codes as a necessary verification tool to confirm the existence and proper functioning of schools, such a measure can be deemed a reasonable and legitimate verification mechanism. This approach aligns with the State’s broader discretion to implement measures that uphold the integrity and standards of the educational system.

JUDGMENT :

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Except Special Leave Petition (Civil) D.No.13142 of 2020: (i) permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted in all the concerned matters; and (ii) Special Leave to Appeal is granted in all matters.

2. These appeals arise out of the final judgment and order dated 06.05.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court,¹[The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench] in Special Appeal No.207 of 2019 and all connected matters whereby the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.1188(SS) of 2019 and other connected matters. These appeals, inter alia, deal with the extent of rights of Shiksha Mitras and benefits conferred upon them by the decision of this Court in State of U.P. and another vs. Anand Kumar Yadav and others, (2018) 13 SCC 560.

3. The facts leading to the decision of this Court in Anand Kumar Yadav, were set out in said decision as under:-

“3. Brief factual matrix may be noted. The U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (the 1972 Act)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(SC) 663

UDAY UMESH LALIT, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDARRam Sharan Maurya – AppellantVersusState of U. P. – Respondent

UDAY UMESH LALIT, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
Ram Sharan Maurya – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent