Priyanka Mishra v. Counsel for

1. Heard Shri G. K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Girijesh Tiwari for the appellant, Shri Rajeev Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1, 2 & 3 and Shri Saurabh Tripathi, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.4.

2. The present intra court appeal is directed against an order dated

27.08.2025, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.10593 of 2025. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the State respondents and Committee of Management of the institution to pay salary to her on the post of Assistant Teacher since the date of her initial joining in the institution. The case of the appellant was that she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the institution vide appointment letter dated 23.07.2018 by the Committee of Management of the institution. However, her salary is not being paid.

3. The record reveals that on 29.07.2025, the learned Single Judge noted the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the District Basic Education Officer has passed an order on 12.06.2023, directing payment of salary to the appellant after due verification of her testimonials. Learned Standing Counsel was directed to obtain instructions in light of the said submission. On the next date i.e. 18.08.2025, it seems that a statement was made on behalf of the State respondents by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on basis of instructions received by him, that the appointment of appellant appears to be doubtful as it was not against any 2 SPLA No. 881 of 2025 sanctioned post. After noting the aforesaid stand, learned Single Judge directed District Basic Education Officer, Deoria and Nitil Kumar, Member, General Body of the Society of the institution to remain present before the Court on the next date alongwith records pertaining to selection and appointment of the appellant. On the next date i.e. 27.08.2025, it appears that the District Basic Education Officer and Nitil Kumar, Member, General Body of the Society were present. The Court noted the stand of Nitil Kumar, Member, Genearl Body of the Society that the previous Manager, Gorakh Nath Tiwari, has not handed over the original records and, therefore, photostat copies of the documents pertaining to selection and appointment of appellant and one another teacher, namely Manoj Kumar Yadav were placed before the Court. It further appears that on the said date the District Basic Education Officer stated before the Court that during her posting as District Basic Education Officer, Deoria for two years, she has not received any application from the appellant or Manoj Kumar Yadav complaining of non payment of salary to them. The order passed by learned Single Judge on 27.08.2025 records that the records produced have been perused and therefrom it appears that there was no approval nor any sanction letter for appointment of the appellant and another teacher, namely Manoj Kumar Yadav. On basis of aforesaid premise, the learned Single Judge has held that prima facie it appears that there was an attempt to prepare forged documents relating to appointment of appellant and which would require thorough inquiry. Accordingly, direction has been issued to the Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P. to get an inquiry conducted regarding the appointment of appellant and the other teacher and to submit report before the Court at the earliest. It has also been provided that in case inquiry is not concluded within the time stipulated, the reasons thereof shall be intimated to the Court. It was also left open to the authorities to take coercive measures against the persons concerned in case of their non cooperation in the inquiry.

4. Shri G. K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, for the appellant submits that the impugned order is passed on a wrong factual premise. He submits that by an order dated 05.04.2018 the District Basic Education Officer granted permission to the Management to initiate selection process for 3 SPLA No. 881 of 2025 appointment of six Assistant Teachers. Consequent thereto, Management advertised the vacancies in two newspapers. On 24.04.2018, the District Basic Education Officer nominated Block Education Officer as his nominee in the selection committee. Thereafter, selection was duly held by the Selection Committee comprising of nominee of District Basic Education Officer. The appellant was duly selected and appointed on basis of the said selection vide appointment letter dated 23.07.2018. Thereafter, the appellant was not paid salary compelling her to file Writ-A No.17 of 2021 and which was disposed of with the direction to the competent authority to take decision in relation to payment of salary to the appellant. In pursuance of aforesaid order, the District Basic Education Officer passed an order on 12.06.2023, whereby appointment of appellant was approved and simultaneously, direction was issued for payment of salary to the appellant. Still when the salary was not paid, the appellant was compelled to file writ petition wherein the impugned order has been passed. The submission is that all the aforesaid orders/documents/approvals were duly filed alongwith writ petition but the learned Single Judge has overlooked the aforesaid documents and consequently, the finding recorded in the order that there was no approval nor any sanction letter for the appointment is perverse and is against the records. He further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the direction for holding inquiry is wholly unwarranted.

5. We have gone through the records of the case and we find that the order dated 05.04.2018, by which, District Basic Education Officer granted permission for making selection on six posts of Assistant Teacher was filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The advertisement issued in the newspapers and the letter of the District Basic Education Officer dated

24.04.2018, nominating his representative in the Selection Committee, are also part of the record of the writ petition. The appointment letter dated

23.07.2018 has been filed as Annexure-5 and the order of District Basic Education Officer dated 12.06.2023 granting approval to the appointment and payment of salary as Annexure-10.

6. Shri Rajeev Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Shri Saurabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 do not dispute that the aforesaid 4 SPLA No. 881 of 2025 documents are part of the record. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel also does not dispute the authenticity of aforesaid documents.

7. Evidently, the finding recorded by the Writ Court in the impugned order that there was no approval nor any sanction letter for appointment of appellant and another teacher is against the record. In normal course, as only inquiry has been directed we may have declined to interfere but in the facts and circumstances, noticed above, we are of the considered opinion that there was no occasion for directing any such inquiry and particularly, when there was no counter affidavit on behalf of respondents to controvert the documents filed by the appellant alongwith the writ petition.

8. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of learned Single Judge dated 27.08.2025 in Writ-A No.10593 of 2025 is hereby set aside. The writ petition would be decided on merits. The respondents to the writ petition shall be at liberty to file counter affidavit. September 24, 2025 Ashok Kr. (Arun Kumar,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri G. K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Girijesh Tiwari for the appellant, Shri Rajeev Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1, 2 & 3 and Shri Saurabh Tripathi, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.4.

2. The present intra court appeal is directed against an order dated

27.08.2025, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.10593 of 2025. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the State respondents and Committee of Management of the institution to pay salary to her on the post of Assistant Teacher since the date of her initial joining in the institution. The case of the appellant was that she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the institution vide appointment letter dated 23.07.2018 by the Committee of Management of the institution. However, her salary is not being paid.

3. The record reveals that on 29.07.2025, the learned Single Judge noted the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the District Basic Education Officer has passed an order on 12.06.2023, directing payment of salary to the appellant after due verification of her testimonials. Learned Standing Counsel was directed to obtain instructions in light of the said submission. On the next date i.e. 18.08.2025, it seems that a statement was made on behalf of the State respondents by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on basis of instructions received by him, that the appointment of appellant appears to be doubtful as it was not against any 2 SPLA No. 881 of 2025 sanctioned post. After noting the aforesaid stand, learned Single Judge directed District Basic Education Officer, Deoria and Nitil Kumar, Member, General Body of the Society of the institution to remain present before the Court on the next date alongwith records pertaining to selection and appointment of the appellant. On the next date i.e. 27.08.2025, it appears that the District Basic Education Officer and Nitil Kumar, Member, General Body of the Society were present. The Court noted the stand of Nitil Kumar, Member, Genearl Body of the Society that the previous Manager, Gorakh Nath Tiwari, has not handed over the original records and, therefore, photostat copies of the documents pertaining to selection and appointment of appellant and one another teacher, namely Manoj Kumar Yadav were placed before the Court. It further appears that on the said date the District Basic Education Officer stated before the Court that during her posting as District Basic Education Officer, Deoria for two years, she has not received any application from the appellant or Manoj Kumar Yadav complaining of non payment of salary to them. The order passed by learned Single Judge on 27.08.2025 records that the records produced have been perused and therefrom it appears that there was no approval nor any sanction letter for appointment of the appellant and another teacher, namely Manoj Kumar Yadav. On basis of aforesaid premise, the learned Single Judge has held that prima facie it appears that there was an attempt to prepare forged documents relating to appointment of appellant and which would require thorough inquiry. Accordingly, direction has been issued to the Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P. to get an inquiry conducted regarding the appointment of appellant and the other teacher and to submit report before the Court at the earliest. It has also been provided that in case inquiry is not concluded within the time stipulated, the reasons thereof shall be intimated to the Court. It was also left open to the authorities to take coercive measures against the persons concerned in case of their non cooperation in the inquiry.

4. Shri G. K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, for the appellant submits that the impugned order is passed on a wrong factual premise. He submits that by an order dated 05.04.2018 the District Basic Education Officer granted permission to the Management to initiate selection process for 3 SPLA No. 881 of 2025 appointment of six Assistant Teachers. Consequent thereto, Management advertised the vacancies in two newspapers. On 24.04.2018, the District Basic Education Officer nominated Block Education Officer as his nominee in the selection committee. Thereafter, selection was duly held by the Selection Committee comprising of nominee of District Basic Education Officer. The appellant was duly selected and appointed on basis of the said selection vide appointment letter dated 23.07.2018. Thereafter, the appellant was not paid salary compelling her to file Writ-A No.17 of 2021 and which was disposed of with the direction to the competent authority to take decision in relation to payment of salary to the appellant. In pursuance of aforesaid order, the District Basic Education Officer passed an order on 12.06.2023, whereby appointment of appellant was approved and simultaneously, direction was issued for payment of salary to the appellant. Still when the salary was not paid, the appellant was compelled to file writ petition wherein the impugned order has been passed. The submission is that all the aforesaid orders/documents/approvals were duly filed alongwith writ petition but the learned Single Judge has overlooked the aforesaid documents and consequently, the finding recorded in the order that there was no approval nor any sanction letter for the appointment is perverse and is against the records. He further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the direction for holding inquiry is wholly unwarranted.

5. We have gone through the records of the case and we find that the order dated 05.04.2018, by which, District Basic Education Officer granted permission for making selection on six posts of Assistant Teacher was filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The advertisement issued in the newspapers and the letter of the District Basic Education Officer dated

24.04.2018, nominating his representative in the Selection Committee, are also part of the record of the writ petition. The appointment letter dated

23.07.2018 has been filed as Annexure-5 and the order of District Basic Education Officer dated 12.06.2023 granting approval to the appointment and payment of salary as Annexure-10.

6. Shri Rajeev Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Shri Saurabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 do not dispute that the aforesaid 4 SPLA No. 881 of 2025 documents are part of the record. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel also does not dispute the authenticity of aforesaid documents.

7. Evidently, the finding recorded by the Writ Court in the impugned order that there was no approval nor any sanction letter for appointment of appellant and another teacher is against the record. In normal course, as only inquiry has been directed we may have declined to interfere but in the facts and circumstances, noticed above, we are of the considered opinion that there was no occasion for directing any such inquiry and particularly, when there was no counter affidavit on behalf of respondents to controvert the documents filed by the appellant alongwith the writ petition.

8. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of learned Single Judge dated 27.08.2025 in Writ-A No.10593 of 2025 is hereby set aside. The writ petition would be decided on merits. The respondents to the writ petition shall be at liberty to file counter affidavit. September 24, 2025 Ashok Kr. (Arun Kumar,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad