कल JRT भर्ती के खिलाफ ख़ारिज हुई दो रिट 16368,16435/2016 का कोर्ट आर्डर प्राप्त हो चूका है।
कोर्ट आर्डर की सम्पूर्ण और विस्तृत व्याख्या - Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16368 of 2016
Petitioner :- Durgesh Kumar Shukla And 15 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Srivastava,Gaurav Mahajan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh,Shailendra
and�
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16435 of 2016
Petitioner :- Yogender Kumar And 270 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Mahajan,Vinay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shailendra
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Shri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri A.K. Yadav, learned standing counsel for the respondents in both the above writ petitions.
Shri Shailendra has filed an intervention application on behalf of some of the candidates who were selected on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Senior Basic Schools in the selection of 2015 for Maths and Science.� Shri Anoop Trivedi is seeking permission to file an intervention application on behalf of some other selected and appointed persons.�
It is pointed out by shri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners that the controversy in both the writ petitions are similar and the same reliefs have been sought in both the writ petitions, therefore, the above writ petitions are being decided together.
The contention of the petitioners is that weightage to the marks obtained in the TET Examination have not been given. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, including the counsel appearing for the interveners submitted that this controversy already came up before the Court in W.P. No. 28686 of 2014 Brahm Dev Yadav and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. The petitioners of that writ petition were the persons who had already been selected in the examination in question and they were seeking a direction for issuance of appointment letters. That writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 29.5.2014, Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed in support of the intervention application. The operative portion in paragraph 11 of the said judgment reads as under:
"11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents-Competent Authority(ies) to complete process of making actual appointments within a period of two month sfrom the date of production of a certified copy of this order before concerned appointing authorities; and ensure that appointed persons join their respective posts within a further period of fifteen days and primary institution starts functioning in the next session, i.e. from July, 2014 and onwards, which would be in large public interest."
The special appeal no. 561 of 2014 (Alok Kumar Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and others) filed against the aforesaid direction of the Court was dismissed by a Division Bench by judgment dated 12.6.2014. Another special appeal was filed by one Anil Kumar Singh being special appeal No. 622 of 2014 (Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), which was disposed of by the Division Bench by order dated 7.4.2015 with liberty to the appellants therein to file review/recall application before the learned single judge dated 29.5.2014. It is stated that the review petition was filed which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 8.5.2015. Another writ petition was filed by Santosh Kumar Mishra being writ petition no. 24818 of 2015 ( Santosh Kumar Mishra and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) claiming that they have been selected for appointment as Assistant Teacher but no appointment letters have been issued to them. That writ petition was also disposed of by the Court by order dated 30.4.2015 on the same terms and conditions as in the order of the earlier learned Single Judge dated 29.5.2014. Special Appeal No. 363 of 2015 (Bharat Suman Vs. State of U.P. and others) against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.4.2015 was also dismissed on 15.5.2015. A contempt application (civil) No. 3677 of 2015 (Deepak Sharma Vs. Hira Lal Gupta) was filed in which notices were issued on 29.5.2015 and ultimately the order was complied with and the contempt petition was consigned by order dated 12.10.2015.
In the present writ petitions the petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to quash the G.O. dated 15.9.2015 by which Assistant Teachers (Science and Maths) are being appointed and also the G.O. dated 16.1.2016 directing the Basic Shiksha Adhikari for payment of salary. Relief no. 2 is for a direction to the respondents to finalize and fix the criteria for selection on the vacant post of Assistant Teachers (Science and Maths). The relief no. 3 is to give weightage to the candidates who have been successful in TET while preparing the merit list. The relief no. 4 is for a direction to the respondents to follow the guide lines laid down in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma. Further relief is not to act upon the G.O. dated 16.1.2016.
In the present writ petitions the select list has neither been challenged nor the appointment letters of any persons have been challenged nor the persons who have been been selected and appointed made a party to the petitions.
In this view of the matter the controversy having already been settled by several judgments of this Court and the persons selected having already been given appointment, the above writ petitions seeking to reopen the matter through these writ petitions are wholly misconceived and frivolous and are accordingly dismissed.�
Order Date :- 26.4.2016
Sponsored links :
ताज़ा खबरें - प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती Breaking News: सरकारी नौकरी - Army /Bank /CPSU /Defence /Faculty /Non-teaching /Police /PSC /Special recruitment drive /SSC /Stenographer /Teaching Jobs /Trainee / UPSC
कोर्ट आर्डर की सम्पूर्ण और विस्तृत व्याख्या - Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16368 of 2016
Petitioner :- Durgesh Kumar Shukla And 15 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Srivastava,Gaurav Mahajan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh,Shailendra
and�
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16435 of 2016
Petitioner :- Yogender Kumar And 270 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Mahajan,Vinay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shailendra
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Shri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri A.K. Yadav, learned standing counsel for the respondents in both the above writ petitions.
Shri Shailendra has filed an intervention application on behalf of some of the candidates who were selected on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Senior Basic Schools in the selection of 2015 for Maths and Science.� Shri Anoop Trivedi is seeking permission to file an intervention application on behalf of some other selected and appointed persons.�
It is pointed out by shri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners that the controversy in both the writ petitions are similar and the same reliefs have been sought in both the writ petitions, therefore, the above writ petitions are being decided together.
The contention of the petitioners is that weightage to the marks obtained in the TET Examination have not been given. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, including the counsel appearing for the interveners submitted that this controversy already came up before the Court in W.P. No. 28686 of 2014 Brahm Dev Yadav and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. The petitioners of that writ petition were the persons who had already been selected in the examination in question and they were seeking a direction for issuance of appointment letters. That writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 29.5.2014, Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed in support of the intervention application. The operative portion in paragraph 11 of the said judgment reads as under:
"11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents-Competent Authority(ies) to complete process of making actual appointments within a period of two month sfrom the date of production of a certified copy of this order before concerned appointing authorities; and ensure that appointed persons join their respective posts within a further period of fifteen days and primary institution starts functioning in the next session, i.e. from July, 2014 and onwards, which would be in large public interest."
The special appeal no. 561 of 2014 (Alok Kumar Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and others) filed against the aforesaid direction of the Court was dismissed by a Division Bench by judgment dated 12.6.2014. Another special appeal was filed by one Anil Kumar Singh being special appeal No. 622 of 2014 (Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), which was disposed of by the Division Bench by order dated 7.4.2015 with liberty to the appellants therein to file review/recall application before the learned single judge dated 29.5.2014. It is stated that the review petition was filed which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 8.5.2015. Another writ petition was filed by Santosh Kumar Mishra being writ petition no. 24818 of 2015 ( Santosh Kumar Mishra and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) claiming that they have been selected for appointment as Assistant Teacher but no appointment letters have been issued to them. That writ petition was also disposed of by the Court by order dated 30.4.2015 on the same terms and conditions as in the order of the earlier learned Single Judge dated 29.5.2014. Special Appeal No. 363 of 2015 (Bharat Suman Vs. State of U.P. and others) against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.4.2015 was also dismissed on 15.5.2015. A contempt application (civil) No. 3677 of 2015 (Deepak Sharma Vs. Hira Lal Gupta) was filed in which notices were issued on 29.5.2015 and ultimately the order was complied with and the contempt petition was consigned by order dated 12.10.2015.
In the present writ petitions the petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to quash the G.O. dated 15.9.2015 by which Assistant Teachers (Science and Maths) are being appointed and also the G.O. dated 16.1.2016 directing the Basic Shiksha Adhikari for payment of salary. Relief no. 2 is for a direction to the respondents to finalize and fix the criteria for selection on the vacant post of Assistant Teachers (Science and Maths). The relief no. 3 is to give weightage to the candidates who have been successful in TET while preparing the merit list. The relief no. 4 is for a direction to the respondents to follow the guide lines laid down in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma. Further relief is not to act upon the G.O. dated 16.1.2016.
In the present writ petitions the select list has neither been challenged nor the appointment letters of any persons have been challenged nor the persons who have been been selected and appointed made a party to the petitions.
In this view of the matter the controversy having already been settled by several judgments of this Court and the persons selected having already been given appointment, the above writ petitions seeking to reopen the matter through these writ petitions are wholly misconceived and frivolous and are accordingly dismissed.�
Order Date :- 26.4.2016
Sponsored links :
ताज़ा खबरें - प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती Breaking News: सरकारी नौकरी - Army /Bank /CPSU /Defence /Faculty /Non-teaching /Police /PSC /Special recruitment drive /SSC /Stenographer /Teaching Jobs /Trainee / UPSC