Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURESH CHANDRA PANDEY versus STATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Suresh Chandra Pandey v. State Of U.P.And Others - WRIT - A No. 991 of 1986 [2007] RD-AH 6759 (12 April 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner claims that he was appoined as trained Assistant Teacher, Science in the Junior High School, Tilthi, district Mirzpur on 25.7.1964.  In pursuance of an advertisement for the post of Science Teacher in Junior High School, Nagar Palika, Allahabad, he applied and was selected.  Vide appointment letter dated 4.1.1967, he was appointed on the above post. He joined as Science Teacher in Bahran Junior High School, Allahabad on 7.1.1967.

In the seniority list of teachers of Junior High School, Nagar Palika Allahabad dated 6.11.1968 prepared by Education Superintendent Nagar Maha Palika, Allahabad, the name of the petitioner figured at sl. no. 47 as the period of service from 25.7.1964 to 6.1.1967 as Secience Teacher in the Junior High School, Tilthi, Mirzapur was not taken into consideration.

On the representation of the petitioner, he was informed vide order dated 25.7.1975 passed by Education Superintendent, Nagar Maha Palika, Allahabad  that previous service rendered by him w.e.f. 25.7.1964 to 6.1.1967 had been added.  Accordingly in the seniority list of Assistant Teachers of Junior High School, Allahabad for 1982 prepared by Education Superintendent Nagar Maha Palika Allahabad, the name of the petitioner figured at sl no. 8. This seniority list has been appended as Annexure VI to the writ petition.

Thereafter, in the provisional gradation list of Assistant Teachers of the Junior High School, Nagar Kshetra Allahabad dated 10.10.1984, his name was at sl. no. 17  showing his date of appointment as 7.1.1967.

The petitioner again filed representation dated 16.10.1984 against the aforesaid gradation list and incorrect date of birth. Reminder after reminders are claimed to have been sent by him but to no avail.

Without deciding the representation of the petitioner, selection to the post of Junior High School  Teacher/ Head Master/Assistant Master was made on 12.2.1985 by respondent nos. 2 to 4.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 2060 of 1985 which was disposed of by judgment and order dated 20.9.1985 commanding the respondent no. 2 consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Head Master in any of the institutions, namely, Junior High School Naini, Allahabad; Junior High School, Purana Katra, Allahabad; Junior High School, Naya Katra, Allahabad or Junior High School Bairahana, Allahabad within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the aforesaid judgment and order.

In compliance of the aforesaid mandamus, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Hadmaster of Junior High School Naya Katra, Allahabad vide order dated 2.11.1985 appended as Annexure XII to the writ petition.  The petitioner was funcioning as such but vide impugned order dated 31.12.1985 passed by respondent no.2, he was reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher.  The petitioner alleges that this order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

At the time of admission of this writ petition, no interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner.  Admittedly, the petitioner, after  his reversion to the post of Assistant Teacher, did not shoulder the responsibilities of Head Master.  He was 44 years of age at the time of instituion of the writ petition.  By now, he must have retired from service.  Thus, the writ petition as regards gradation list has rendered infructuous by efflux of time.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.  No order as to costs.

Dated 12.4.2007

kkb


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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