HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 12928 of 2025 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nagendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent-BSA and learned counsel for the respondent-State. At the very outset, learned counsel for respondent-BSA submits that the petition is not maintainable as there is remedy to file appeal under Rule 5(2) of U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973. He further submits that in case, such an appeal is filed according to the aforesaid Rule, the same may be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law. On the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that in case, such an appeal is filed, a direction may be issued to the appellate authority to decide the same in accordance with law, ignoring the delay, if any. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case set up on behalf of the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of by providing that petitioner may file an appeal under Rule 5(2) of U.P. Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973, ventilating all her grievances, supported by such documents, as may be advised, before the appellate authority, within three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. On such appeal being filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority shall make all endeavours to consider and decide the same, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, ignoring the delay, if any, strictly in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of three months, if there is no legal impediment. September 10, 2025 Rahul. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pankaj Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Nagendra Kumar Pandey (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Smt. Sarita Singh .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad