HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 299 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard. 2. By means of this appeal, the Committee of Management which was an opposite party in the writ petition has challenged the judgment and order dated 18.08.2025 passed in Writ-A No.8465 of 2025 [Yadvendra Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Ors.]. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is two-fold, firstly, that without issuing notice to the appellant-Committee of Management, the writ petition of the petitioner therein has been allowed quashing the show cause notice dated 19.07.2025 issued by District Basic Education Officer to the private respondent on the complaint of the appellant- Committee of Management that his experience certificate was not in accordance with law and, secondly, the experience certificate dated 09.07.2015 is not in accordance with law as the experience envisaged under Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 was of five years' teaching experience in a recognized junior high school or senior basic school of basic education board whereas the certificate issued by Rameshwardas Inter College refers to his appointment as Assistant Teacher/ Lecturer. In this context, it has been pointed out that the private respondent completed his B.Ed in 2009, therefore, he could not have possibly taught in junior high school section Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashish Verma, Ashish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ajay Pratap Singh, C.S.C. C/M Shankar Suvan Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Sultanpur Thru. Manager Manoj Kumar Tiwari .....Appellant(s) Yadvendra Yadav And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) of the intermediate college aforesaid in the year 2002 as B.Ed was a necessary pre-requisite for being eligible for such teaching. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, we find that private respondent was appointed as Head Master in the appellant's institution vide order dated 22.03.2016. More that nine years have passed since the said appointment. It is too late in the day to interfere with the judgment of the writ court on the grounds mentioned by the appellant. The private respondent has already worked for about more than nine years as a Head Master. We, accordingly, decline to interfere in the matter at the behest of the appellant in this intra-court appeal especially as it is not a case that the experience certificate is fabricated. 5. Accordingly, the special appeal is disposed of. September 8, 2025 Shanu/- SPLA No. 299 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench