HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9854 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally. 3. The Committee of Management of the Institution is before this Court raising a challenge to the order dated 14.07.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby permission sought by the Committee of Management for filling in the vacant posts of Assistant Teacher and Head Master has been rejected on the ground that the requisition sent by the Committee of Management does not adhere to the requisition form Clause (C) (A) (i) and (ii). 4. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and conditions of Service of Teachers) (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2019'), Rule 7 deals with the advertisement of vacancy pertaining to non Government aided Junior High School which is applicable for the institution of the petitioner. 5. Placing reliance on the Rule 7(1)(b) of the Rules, 2019, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if the requisition that had been sent by the Committee of Management did not adhere to the proforma as indicated in the impugned order consequently in terms of the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sayyed Farooq Ahmad, Afzal Ahmad Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. C/M , Kamta Singh Junior Balika Vidyalya Thru. Its Manager Bhagwan Bux Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Rules 7(1)(b) of the Rules, 2019 the Basic Education Officer is required to send a requisition for filling up the vacant post to the Director, Basic Education in case of failure from the management. 6. Argument is that if the contention of the respondents is taken to be correct and that the requisition sent by the Committee of Management did not adhere to the proforma consequently the same can be considered to be a 'failure' from the management to sent the requisition as such it was the duty of the Basic Education Officer to have himself sent the requisition for filling up the vacancies to the Director of Education (Basic) and there cannot be any occasion for rejection of the claim of the petitioner for filling up the said vacancies and thus it is apparent that there has been patent non application of mind on the part of the authorities concerned while passing the order impugned. 7. Aforesaid Rules 7(1)(b) of the Rules, 2019 casts a duty on the District Education Officer to sent a requisition in case of failure from the management is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel. 8. Even otherwise the said rules have not been considered by the competent authority while passing the impugned order. 9. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 14.07.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 is quashed. 10. The respondent No.3 is directed to pass a fresh order considering the Rules, 2019 which order would be passed within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. September 1, 2025 prateek WRIA No. 9854 of 2025 2 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench