Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 159738 (ALL)

FAREEDA BANO v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY./PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF BASIC EDUCATION LKO. AND 4 OTHERS

WRIA/9559/2025 · 2025-08-28

Abdul Moin

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9559 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2, Sri Abhinav Singh, learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 4, and Ms. Eshita Bhasin, learned counsel, who files Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.5. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by respondent no.3, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. Also under challenge is the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by respondent no.4, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition, whereby the petitioner has been directed to handover the charge of Headmaster to respondent no.5. 3. Admittedly respondent no.5 is senior to the petitioner. 4. The order is only sought to be challenge on the ground that as the respondent no.5 had earlier been sent for training of ARP and after the end of training she herself opted for extension of training consequently she cannot be given the charge of the post of Incharge Head Master. 5. The aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is found to be patently fallacious and misconceived considering the fact that at no stretch of time has the respondent no.5 ever refused to accept the charge of Incharge Headmaster. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prem Shanker Pandey, Abhishek Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Abhinav Singh Fareeda Bano .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Education Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. Admittedly the charge of the Incharge Headmaster is to be given on the basis of seniority and once the respondent no.5 is senior to the petitioner consequently the Court does not find any reason to interfere in the orders impugned. 7. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. August 28, 2025 A. Katiyar WRIA No. 9559 of 2025 2 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench