Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. USHA MISHRA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Usha Mishra v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 24200 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 9829 (22 May 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

                                                                                      Court No. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24200 of 2007

Smt. Usha Mishra

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Earlier petitioner had filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12366 of 2001 and this court on 10.8.2006 passed order for considering the claim of petitioner.

In the District of Sant Ravidas Nagar there is recogninsed institution known as  Gyan Devi Balika Inter College, Bhadohi,  District Sant Ravidad Nagar (Old District Bhadohi) and the said institution in question is duly recognized Girls institution under the provision of  U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.  By virtue of being in grant-in-aid list of the State Government, provision of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 are also applicable to the said institution. Selection and appointment on the post of Principal, Lecturer and L.T. Grade has to be made strictly as per the provision as contained in U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982  and rules framed there under  known as U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998. In the institution concerned, one Smt.  Gayatri Srivastava has been performing and discharging her duty as Principal and she had attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.1996 and thus giving rise to substantive vacancy on the post of Principal of the institution. Smt. Savitri Tripathi  has been performing and discharging her duty as Lecturer in Sanskrit.  By virtue of being senior most lecturer w.e.f. 1.7.1996 she was promoted as ad-hoc Principal. In the resultant vacancy, which had fallen vacant on account of ad -hoc promotion of Smt. Savitri Tripathi, Smt. Shail Srivastava was accorded ad hoc promotion and her ad-hoc promotion had been approved on 9.5.1999. Petitioner claims that she was entitled to be promoted on ad-hoc basis, as she was senior to Smt. Shail Srivastava and in this background injustice has been done to her. Petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12366 of 2006 and thereafter, impugned order had been passed on 10.4.2007 by the District Inspector of Schools, Sant Ravi Das Nagar.

Order impugned clearly reflects that till date substantive vacancy on  the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit has not  fallen vacant, inasmuch as it has not been disclosed as to whether Smt. Savitri Tripathi   is still  continuing in the institution or not.  Dispute which is sought to be raised is only in respect of ad-hoc appointment at the point of time when resultant vacancy had fallen vacant on 1.7,.1996 on account of ad-hoc promotion of Smt. Savitri Tripathi. Petitioner undisputedly was not eligible when resultant vacancy occurred, as she  secured her M.A. degree in SansKrit on 30.8.1999 whereas Smt. Shail Srivastava had secured her M.A. degree in Sanskrit from Sampurnanad Sanskrit University in the year 1995. The D.I.O.S. has categorically mentioned that at the point of time when vacancy in question had occurred, petitioner had not fulfilled requisite minimum eligibility criteria. Even copy of the order dated 9.5.1999, has not been appended before this Court. However, it is made clear that in case substantive vacancy to the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit had fallen vacant after attaining the age of superannuation of Smt.  Savitri  Tripathi, then in that event in case said post in question fallen  within the promotional quota, then exercise be undertaken to fill up the said post strictly in consonance with Rule 14 of 1998 Rules.

With these observations, writ petition is dismissed.

Dt. 22.5.2007

T.S.


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.