State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others … v. Counsel for on 22 Sep 2025

Judgment

1. The petitioners have preferred instant writ petition challenging an order dated 02.09.2025 passed by respondent no. 3 - Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board at Prayagraj, insofar as it relates to them.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools on 10.03.1997. They joined their services on 14.03.1997 and 13.03.1997 respectively, while the respondent no. 5 - Ved Prakash Gautam was appointed on 30.11.1999 as an Assistant Teacher in a Junior Basic School. He was granted promotion on the post of Headmaster in Junior Basic School/ Assistant Teacher in Senior Basic School, on 19.07.2004, extending the benefit of reservation in promotion under the Scheduled Caste category, which was in effect at that relevant point of time. The petitioner nos. 1 & 2 were granted promotion / grade pay of an Assistant Teacher Senior Basic School/ Head Master of Junior Basic School on

30.11.2007 and 09.07.2004 respectively.

3. The matter regarding reservation in promotion came up for consideration before this Court and travelled up to the Apex Court and ultimately in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar and others, Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 20111, by order dated 27.04.2012, provisions granting the benefit of promotion under Section 3(7) of the U.P. 1 (2012) 7 SCC 1 2 Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 as well as Rule-8A of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 were struck down. As per vacant posts of Head Masters in Senior Basic Schools, a seniority list of 415 teachers was finalized on 29.06.2015 in accorance with the procedure prescribed under Rule-18 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. In the said list, the names of petitioners were mentioned at Sl. Nos. 223 and 138 respectively. Said list was prepared considering the date of initial appointment of the incumbents who were appointed on 10.03.1997 or prior to the said date. On the basis of said list, a list of eligible candidates, in order of seniority, was preferred, which was forwared to the appointing authority, who issued promotion order dated 10.07.2015, whereby promoting 415 Assistant Teachers to the posts of Headmaster in Senior Basic Schools, wherein the petitioners' names were shown at Sl. Nos. 219 and 135 respectively.

4. In pursuance of the aforesaid list, the petitioners submitted their joining on 14.07.2015 in their respective schools. Aggrieved by the said seniority lists dated 29.06.2015 and 10.07.2015, the teachers belonging to SC/ST category preferred Writ-A No. 44605 of 20152, wherein the effect of seniority list dated

29.06.2015 and the promotion order dated 10.07.2015 was stayed by order dated 13.08.2015. Said interim order was challenged by the aggrieved persons including the petitioner no. 1 in Special Appeal Defective No. 306 of 20173, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.05.2017 in terms of the order dated

31.03.2017 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 48 of 20174, directing that all those incumbents, who had joined their duties on the promotional post prior to passing of the order dated 09.09.2016, their functioning should not at all be disturbed and same shall abide by final order to be passed in the writ petition. Finally, the batch of writ petitions including Writ-A No. 44605 of 2015, was decided by a common order dated 11.03.2024 passed in leading writ petition being Writ-A No. 36240 of 20155 granting liberty to the petitioners therein to file objections before the respondent no. 3. The writ 2 Bharat Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors. 3 Aditya Kumar and 34 Others v. Bharat Singh and 5 Others 4 Bhujwal Singh v. Vivek Kumar and Others 5 Tapeshar Ram and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024:AHC:42824 3 petition filed in similar terms by respondent no. 5 being Writ-A No. 35913 of 20156 was disposed of on 11.03.2024. In pursuance thereof, the respondent no. 5 filed a representation on 18.03.2024 before the respondent no. 4, whereupon without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the respondent no. 4 by order dated 10.12.2024 cancelled the promotion of the petitioners.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred Writ-A No. 498 of 20257, which was allowed on 22.01.2025 with a direction to respondent no. 3 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, however, the respondent authority without adhereing to the specific directions of this Court passed the order impugned dated 02.09.2025, giving reference to an order dated 11.03.2024 passed in the case of Sunil Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. & Others & Others8.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were promoted in the year 2015 as Headmasters considering the date of their substantive appointment as per the seniority list which has been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. However, without recording any reason in respect to the finding in the order impugned that the petitioners have been considered for promotion on the basis of date of joining, the order impugned has been passed, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Yatindra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally at this stage in terms of Rules of the Court.

8. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent authority has misconstrued petitioners' date of promotion, on the basis of which the promotion was accorded to them, merit acceptance. The respondent authority has erred in considering the date of appointment as the date of petitioners' joining and consequently passed the impugned order, reproducing the order passed in Sunil Kumar Dubey (supra) and relying thereupon, whereas the subject matter in the said writ petition was with 6 Ved Prakash Gautam and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others 7 Aditya Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. & 4 Others 8 Writ-A No. 69714 of 2021 4 respect to the teachers appointed on the same date, however, their promotion as Headmaster in Senior Basic Schools was accorded treating their seniority from the date of their joining. This Court finds that the respondent authority has erroneously considered the petitioners' case in the light of observations made in Sunil Kumar Dubey (supra).

9. It is experienced that authorities have imbibed the practice of reproducing or quoting the orders passed by the Courts and do not put in sincere efforts to know about the facts and relevance thereof before applying the same and deciding the matter. The dispute arose in Sunil Kumar Dubey (supra) is distinct from the controversy involved in the present case, however, the impugned order reflects that the premise on which it has been passed, primarily, is the observations made by this Court in Sunil Kumar Dubey (supra).

10. The order impugned itself shows that it has been passed without taking into account the relevant date i.e. date of appointment, on the basis of which the promotion was granted to the petitioners, thus, this aspect requires reconsideration at the end of authority concerned in accordance with law.

11. In view of the above, the matter is remitted to respondent no. 3 to pass a reasoned and speaking order, correctly adverting to the date on the basis of which the seniority list was prepared and the petitioners were granted promotion. The order impugned dated 02.09.2025 is hereby quashed. The respondent authority shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law, expeditiously, after issuing notices and affording opportunity of hearing to all affected persons including respondent no. 5, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.

12. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

13. No order as to costs. September 22, 2025 DS (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad