Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85150 Reserved on 13/14.05.2025 Delivered on 21.05.2025 Court No. - 6 1. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32490 of 2013 Petitioner :- Anar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava III,Rakesh Kumar Singh,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 2. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 31315 of 2013 Petitioner :- Hansh Raj And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Upadhyaya Counsel for Respondent :- S.K. Chaudhary,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava 3. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 51528 of 2013 Petitioner :- Avnish Kumar Saxena And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava III Counsel for Respondent :- S.K.Chaudhary 4. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28790 of 2013 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K.Singh,Radha Kant Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Kumar Srivastava, S.K.Chaudhary 5. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30713 of 2013 Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 6 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava III,Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- S.K.Chaudhary 6. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30710 of 2013 Petitioner :- Avnish Kumar Saxena And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 6 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava III Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Saxena,C.V.S.Raghuvansi 7. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 57359 of 2010 Petitioner :- Avnish Kumar Saxena Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava III 2 Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Mishra,Rahul Mishra Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. In the present bunch of writ petitions appointments of petitioners were not found in terms of relevant provisions and on basis of an order passed in earlier round of litigation Director of Education (Basic) has conducted an inquiry and after giving opportunity to petitioners, come to conclusion that their appointments were not in terms of relevant provisions and procedure was not followed, such as advertisement was not issued in two daily newspapers and there were allegations of forgery etc. 2. In all the writ petitions interim orders were passed taking note of arguments that in terms of relevant rules Director of Education (Basic) has no jurisdiction to pass such order. It is a very specific submission by Sri Arvind Srivastava-III, learned counsel for petitioners that they have not taken benefit of interim orders and petitioners are out of service. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners further reiterated the arguments as recorded in interim order that Director of Education (Basic) has no jurisdiction to pass such impugned order. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents has supported the impugned order. 5. I have considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that this Court has passed order whereby a direction was issued for Director of Education (Basic) to conduct an inquiry, therefore, Director has conducted inquiry under the orders of this Court. Said order has remained unchallenged and has attained finality. 7. It may be a ground for interference that Director of Education (Basic) has no jurisdiction, however, it cannot be denied that he is the Higher Officer and he can look into the matter. Otherwise also, impugned order is a very detailed order wherein stand of all the petitioners were noted and various 3 irregularities were pointed out that procedure was not completely followed, there were allegations of forgery etc. which has not been met out effectively by learned counsel for petitioners. 8. The argument of learned counsel for petitioners was only with regard to jurisdiction. In this regard the Court is of the opinion that it cannot be denied that Director of Education (Basic) is a Higher Officer who can look into the matter and cannot close eyes if such irregularities are pointed out and since petitioners are not able to contradict any reasons mentioned in impugned order as well as they have not taken benefit of interim orders, the relief sought cannot be granted. 9. In view of above, all the writ petitions are dismissed. Order Date :- 21.05.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad