Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Bhagirathi Yadav And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 39790 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14828 (1 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 and Sri P.D.Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 and 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of without calling for counter.

The petitioners, who had worked as Acharya, claim parity with Anudeshaks appointed under the Anaupcharik Shiksha Scheme. According to the petitioners, Shiksha Guarantee Scheme and Anaupcharik Shiksha Scheme are one and the same except for change in the name in respect of all other matters i.e. the selection procedure, qualification and the purpose of appointment of Anudeshak and Acharya are the same.

The State Government under the order dated 10th October, 2005 has provided for preference being granted to the incumbents, who had earlier worked as Anudeshak in appointment of Shiksha Mitra. The petitioners therefore, submit that similar preference should also be provided for Acharyas in the selection of Shiksha Mitra.

In the opinion of the Court, the grievance raised by the petitioners has to be considered by the State Government alone, which has the competence to provide the terms and conditions for appointment of Shiksha Mitra. Accordingly, it is provided that the petitioners may make their respective representations ventilating all their grievances before the respondent no.1, within two weeks from today alongwith a certified copy of this order. On such a representation being made, the respondent no.1 shall consider and decide the same in the light of the observations made above by means of a reasoned speaking order preferably within four weeks thereafter.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.





Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.