HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 19213 of 2025 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the two impugned orders dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh / respondent no. 1. The petitioner has further sought a writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from interfering with her peaceful functioning as Assistant Teachers in her institution and for a consequential direction to the respondents to ensure payment of her salary as and when the same falls due. 3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the controversy involved in the present writ petition stands squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 25.09.2026 passed by this Court in Rajneesh Upadhyay and 14 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, Writ-A No. 11862 of 2025. 4. From a perusal of the record, it transpires that neither counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Committee of Management nor it has not come up with any record to establish the fact that the petitioners have been appointed after following the due procedure prescribed under law. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, this Court finds that the question of ultimate validity of the appointment may be determined by the competent authority upon a lawful and comprehensive examination of the entire record and the respondents be not permitted to proceed upon an assumption of fraud merely because an administrative Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt. Anupriya Rai .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) report subsequently takes a view different from the view earlier taken by the competent authorities. 6. In the peculiar facts of the case, and particularly having regard to the earlier departmental inquiry, the subsequent government action thereon, the criminal proceedings, the prolonged continuance of the petitioners pursuant to government's approvals, the conflicting stands emerging from the respondents themselves, and the disputed contemporaneous official record, the ends of justice would not be served in affirming the impugned action or by conclusively foreclosing the State from undertaking a lawful verification. 7. With the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Court proceeds to finally decide the matter at this stage without calling for counter affidavit of respondent no. 4. 8. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the observations and directions made in Rajneesh Upadhyay (supra). The impugned orders dated 29.07.2026 are quashed, insofar as adverse conclusions are recorded therein against the petitioners. The competent authority shall be at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with the directions contained in Rajneesh Upadhyay (supra). The records pertaining to selection / appointment of the petitioners may be called upon from the Committee of Management of the respective Institutions, in case required. Until such exercise is completed and a final reasoned decision is taken in accordance with law, the petitioners shall not be treated as having been removed from service merely on the strength of the impugned orders. Their claim for salary for the period during which they have actually discharged their duties shall be reconsidered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable statutory and financial framework, uninfluenced by the findings which have been set aside in Rajneesh Upadhyay (supra). 9. No order as to costs. September 29, 2026 Jitendra/- WRIA No. 19213 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad