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


Manoj Bhatnagar v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 9567 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2977 (22 February 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).


                                                               Court No. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9567 of 2007

Manoj Bhagnagar


State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

In the district of Agra, there is a recognised Junior High School known as Mahavir Digamber Jain Girls Junior High School, Peer Kalyani, District Agra. In the said institution, petitioner's mother had been performing and discharging her duty as Assistant Teacher. She died in harness. Petitioner claimed compassionate appointment. Claim of petitioner was considered and thereafter on 4.8.2003 letter was issued by the  District Basic Education Officer, Agra offering appointment to petitioner as Assistant Teacher  un-trained grade. In the approval letter it was also categorically mentioned that while continuing with service, it would be  necessary to receive training within three years. Petitioner has contended that in term of aforementioned condition imposed, petitioner requested  District Basic Education Officer, Agra for making arrangement for sending him for training. Said request was initially not adverted to, in this background, request was repeated and thereafter on 8.6.2006, District Basic Education Officer, Agra asked the Principal DIET to accord training to petitioner. Petitioner has contended that he appeared before the Principal DIET, Agra for getting training. Petitioner has contended that he was not permitted to complete training, as such he preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47708 of 2006 and this court commanded the authority concerned to decide the matter and thereafter, District Basic Education Officer, Agra has passed order disposing of aforementioned representation. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Sri S.R. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case request which was made by petitioner has been totally misread and misconstrued, as such impugned order is liable to be quashed.

Learned Standing Counsel and Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, Advocate on the other hand contended that view, which have been taken is correct view and no interference is warranted.

After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position, which is emerging is that petitioner was offered appointment on compassionate basis as untrained assistant teacher with clear cut stipulation  mentioned therein that within period of three years, petitioner will have to get training. Petitioner had been making repeated request for ensuring compliance of the said part of the order for sending him for training during course of employment. On 8.6.2006 District Basic Education Officer, Agra send letter and asked the Principal DIET to accord training to petitioner, but in-spite of the said letter being sent, petitioner was not ensured training.  At this juncture, earlier petitioner had preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition  47708 of 2006, wherein directives were issued to take into account grievance of petitioner. Order dated 14.10.2006 reflects that claim of petitioner has been considered on the basis of the Government Order dated 25.1.2005 wherein provision has been made qua incumbent, who have completed five years of service on 30.6.2004 or incumbent qua whom two years  period has been left.  Undisputed position is that case of petitioner is not at all covered under Government Order dated 25.1.2005. Petitioner's claim is covered under Government Order dated 4.9.2000 wherein categorical mention has been made that Assistant Teacher can be appointed  as an untrained teacher and training can be accorded to him during continuance in service. Claim of petitioner ought to have been  considered  within the parameter of Government Order dated 4.9.2000 instead of proceeding to consider the claim within the parameter of Government Order dated 25.1.2005 which was not at all applicable and attracted in the facts of the present case. Decision taken by  District Basic Education Officer, Agra on the face of it, is totally misconceived  

Consequently, order dated 14.10.2006 passed by the respondent no.2 is hereby quashed and set aside. District Basic Education Officer, Agra is directed to take fresh decision keeping in view of the Government Order dated 4.9.2000  within next two months thereafter.

With the above observations, writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.

Dt. 22.2.2007



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.