Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 137252 (ALL)

PASHUPATI NATH SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. BASIC EDU. LKO. AND 4 OTHERS

WRIA/4706/2025 · 2025-04-29

Rajesh Singh Chauhan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24629 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4706 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pashupati Nath Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devansh Singh,Sushil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh,Shailendra Singh Rajawat Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vijay Vikram Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 & 2, Sri Rav Vijay Singh learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and Sri S.S. Rajawat, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 and 5. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed following relief : "i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the opposite party no.4 filed as Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the opposite party no.4 filed as Annexure no.2 to the writ petition. iii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANADAMUS commanding the opposite party no.4 to consider and decide the application submitted by the petitioner on 19.04.2025 before opposite party no.4 filed as Annexure no.9 to the writ petition." 3. At the very outset Sri Ran Vijay Singh and Sri S.S. Rajawat has submitted that against the impugned order dated 1.3.2025 whereby the censure entry has been awarded to the petitioner, the petitioner has got the remedy to approach the Additional Director (Basic), U.P. preferring a representation under Rule 5(2) of the U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973. So far as the office memo dated 4.4.2025 is concerned the same has been passed strictly as per the Government Order dated 31.1.2023 which provides that if any minor punishment is awarded to the teacher his educational institution would be shifted within the block and if major punishment is awarded such teacher may be shifted out of block. In the present case since the petitioner has been awarded minor punishment, therefore, he has been shifted from one institution to another institution within the block. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of the aforesaid Government Order the institution in question should be allotted immediately after the punishment order but the transfer order dated 4.4.2025 has been passed after a month from the punishment order. 5. Learned counsel for the B.S.A. has explained that since the institution in question where the petitioner had to be shifted was ascertained, therefore, some short time took place. 6. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has got alternative remedy against the punishment order dated 1.3.2025, therefore, he may prefer a representation / application to the authority concerned within a period of 15 days and if such application / representation is preferred against the order dated 1.3.2025 before the authority concerned, the same application / representation would be decided with expedition strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this Court and decision thereof shall be intimated to the petitioner. 7. So far as the office memo dated 4.4.2025 is (Annexure no. 2) is concerned, the petitioner has been shifted to another institution in terms of Government Order dated 31.1.2023 within the block, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 4.4.2025. 8. However, for any bonafide grievance of the petitioner it has been argued to the effect that petitioner may be permitted to discharge his duties till the end of educational session, the petitioner may raise his appropriate grievance before the competent authority and if such grievance is raised, the same may be disposed of strictly in accordance with law and also the government orders applicable on the issue in question. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally in view of the aforesaid terms. . [Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.] Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Om Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench