Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8346 (ALL)

SHARAD KUMAR PANDEY v. THE STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIA/11893/2026 · 2026-09-23

Manju Rani Chauhan

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 11893 of 2026 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities i.e. District Basic Education Officer (Respondent no.3)/2 to release experience certificate after thorough verification from the Committee of Management and also looking the relevant documents etc. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to issue appointment letters after verification of the Experience Certificate on the Post of the Headmaster in the institution were portioned has been allotted. III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to release the payment salary etc to the petitioner as admissible under law. IV. Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of Petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case. V. Award the cost of petition to the Petitioner." 3. On 07.08.2026, the following order was passed: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aman Patel, Neeraj Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Sharad Kumar Pandey .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) State-respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed with direction to respondent authorities to release the experience certificate after thorough verification from the concerned Committee of Management. 3. Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel emphasizing the page 93 of the writ petition, submits that experience certificate shows that petitioner has worked from the period of 16.9.2010 to 30.6.2011. He further submitted that another date i.e. 13.7.1985 has been mentioned in hand writing on the aforesaid document, therefore, the authenticity of document is required to be verified. 4. Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted ten days' time to obtain instructions in this regard. 5. Put up this case as fresh on 19.8.2026." 4. On 19.08.2026, the following order was passed: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. On the basis of instructions, Dr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State submits that there is no question of issuing experience certificate as the petitioner's services have not been approved till date. He requests for two week's time to bring the same on record by means of an affidavit. 3. Put up this case, as fresh, on 07.09.2026. 4. In the meantime, learned counsel for the petitioner may also file an affidavit annexing the entire documents regarding his appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher." 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it has been stated that the petitioner has placed the experience certificate showing that he has worked as Assistant Teacher in the institution in question from 16.09.2010 to 30.06.2011, thereafter, from 03.07.2015 onward. The aforesaid experience certificate does not mention that the petitioner has worked in any recognized institution. It has also been submitted by WRIA No. 11893 of 2026 2 learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner's initial appointment as Assistant Teacher has not been approved. He further submits that learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to place on record any documentary proof in this regard. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions as advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the present petition lacks merit and is dismissed, accordingly. September 24, 2026 K.N. WRIA No. 11893 of 2026 3 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad