Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15089 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dharmendra Nath Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Upadhyay,Mahendra Pratap Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
The selection of the petitioner and others as Assistant Teachers formed subject matter of a dispute which led to various writ petitions being filed before this Court. Since the petitioner and similarly situated selected candidates were not being accorded appointment, they preferred various writ petitions before this Court. The petitioner here filed Writ-A No. 63932 of 2013 in which an interim order was passed by a learned Judge in the following terms:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the similar controversy is already engaging the attention of this Court in Writ-A No.35969 of 2013 (Rakesh Kumar Shukla & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) in which the Court had passed the following order on 17.7.2014:-
"1. The petitioners are seven in number. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 16 June 2011 they were appointed as Assistant Teacher in Sanskrit Institutions.
2. A similar selection was made in other regions/districts. All the appointments were cancelled on the ground that the selections were not made as per Rules and the matter was carried up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal Civil No. (s) 26125 of 2013, which was converted in Civil Appeal No. 9651 of 2013, has allowed all Civil Appeals on 25 October 2013 and remitted the matter back to the High Court to decide the matter afresh. While remitting the matter the Supreme Court has directed that the Assistant Teachers, whose appointments have been cancelled, shall be reinstated and that shall be subject to the final decision in Special Appeal No. 121 of 2014.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has invited attention of the Court to a similar order dated 09.07.2014 passed by this Court in Writ-A 6739 of 2013 (Santosh Kumar Shukla and others v. State of U.P. and others) in respect of the similarly situated persons. In the said order the following direction has been issued;
"Accordingly, the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the direction issued by the Supreme Court in its order and the Special Appeal (supra) by reinstating the petitioners and paying their monthly salary, till the decision of the Special Appeal No. 121 of 2014 remanded by the Supreme Court and other connected matters therewith."
4. The said position has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts, the benefit granted to the writ petitioners in Writ-A No. 6739 of 2013 shall be extended to the petitioners herein also.
6. List after disposal of Special Appeal No. 121 of 2014."
Relying on the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly directions may also be issued in this petition also.
In view of the above, the benefit granted to the writ petitioners in Writ-A No.6739 of 2013 shall be extended to the petitioners herein also.
List after disposal of Special Appeal No.121 of 2014. "
Pursuant to the directions framed, although the petitioner was reinstated, he has not been paid salary for July 2012 to February 2016.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent states that subject to verification of all facts and contentions on merits being kept open, the claim of the petitioner as noted above shall be duly attended to and a final decision communicated with expedition and in any case within a period of two months from today. He further states that the aforesaid respondent shall move in the matter with due notice to respondent No. 7.
Accordingly and without going into the merits or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner, this petition shall stand disposed of in light of the statement noted above.
Order Date :- 8.1.2021 faraz