High Court · 2025

Sri Lakshman Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 and Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

3. The facts of the case have already been noted in detail by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2025. The order dated 03.07.2025 is reproduced herein below :— "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 to 6, Sri Lakshman Singh, Advocate, who files Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.7, and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.8.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 27.06.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby her representation for extension of two years additional service on the ground of being a recipient of Shikshak Shree Award has been rejected.

3. A perusal of the order would indicate that the competent authority has indicated that there is no formal declaration of the award in favour of the petitioner and consequently she cannot be considered to be an awardee of Shikshak Shree Award and consequently she is not entitled for extension of service.

4. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a list of selected candidates had been drawn up as per rules on 12.10.2020, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the petition, in which the name of the petitioner also finds place.

5. The newspaper reports, a copy of which is Annexure- 7 to the petitioner, also indicates that the petitioner has been awarded the said award. However, upon the petition seeking extension of service on the basis of an awardee of this award has not been granted extension by contending that she has never been awarded the said award and hence the petition.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the name of the petitioner found place in the list of the awardees and there was a due publication in the newspaper of the said award having been conferred upon the petitioner along with others consequently she is to be deemed to be an awardee of Shikshak Shree Award and thus the order impugned which indicates that the petitioner is not an awardee of Shikshak Shree Award and consequently is not entitled for extension of service is patently misconceived.

7. On the other hand, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, contends that although the name of the petitioner along with several others found place in the said list as referred to above yet she and others were never formally awarded the said award and consequently the petitioner cannot be considered to be an awardee of Shikshak Shree Award so as to be considered for extension of service. In this regard Sri Ran Vijay Singh has contended that two alleged awardees namely Prof. Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Ms. Vandana Roy had approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.9189 of 2024 in re; Prof. Rajesh Kumar Pandey and another vs. State of U.P. and others, and this Court vide judgment and order dated 27.05.2025, a copy of which is part of Annexure-14 (Page 68) of the petition, has disposed of the writ petition by indicating that no mandamus or a direction for consideration for Shikshak Shree Award in favour of the petitioners can be issued meaning thereby that the writ Court had itself indicated in its order that the said petitioners were never the awardees of the said award.

8. Sri Singh contends that once the name of the petitioner along with other two persons is entered in the said list and there is a final judgment of this Court in the case of Prof. Rajesh Kumar Pandey (supra) indicating that no mandamus can be issued directing for awarding of the aforesaid award consequently keeping in view the findings as recorded by the writ Court it cannot be said that the petitioner along with others have ever been awarded the said award so as to be extended the benefit of two years extension in service.

9. Sri Singh prays for and is granted a week's time to seek specific instructions as to whether the award of Shikshak Shree was ever conferred upon the petitioner. List after a week as fresh indicating the name of Sri Lakshman Singh, learned counsel, in the cause list from the side of the respondents."

4. From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it emerges that the dispute pertains as to whether the award of Shikshak Shree was conferred upon the petitioner despite her name having been found in the list and newspaper reports also indicating the same.

5. Today, Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions sent by the Director, Higher Education, dated 08.07.2025, states that although the name of the petitioner along with several others had been included in the list of awardees, yet no formal declaration by the State Government was made and, consequently, the petitioner was not conferred with the award of Shikshak Shree.

6. Once the award has not been conferred, consequently there cannot be any occasion for interfering with the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 27.06.2025 for not granting extension in service to the petitioner on the ground of she not being an awardee of the Shikshak Shree Award.

7. The writ petition is dismissed. [Abdul Moin, J.] Order Date :- 18.7.2025 cks/- CHANDRA KANT SINGH CHANDRA KANT SINGH CHANDRA KANT SINGH CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Sri Lakshman Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 and Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

3. The facts of the case have already been noted in detail by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2025. The order dated 03.07.2025 is reproduced herein below :— "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 to 6, Sri Lakshman Singh, Advocate, who files Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.7, and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.8.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 27.06.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby her representation for extension of two years additional service on the ground of being a recipient of Shikshak Shree Award has been rejected.

3. A perusal of the order would indicate that the competent authority has indicated that there is no formal declaration of the award in favour of the petitioner and consequently she cannot be considered to be an awardee of Shikshak Shree Award and consequently she is not entitled for extension of service.

4. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a list of selected candidates had been drawn up as per rules on 12.10.2020, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the petition, in which the name of the petitioner also finds place.

5. The newspaper reports, a copy of which is Annexure- 7 to the petitioner, also indicates that the petitioner has been awarded the said award. However, upon the petition seeking extension of service on the basis of an awardee of this award has not been granted extension by contending that she has never been awarded the said award and hence the petition.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the name of the petitioner found place in the list of the awardees and there was a due publication in the newspaper of the said award having been conferred upon the petitioner along with others consequently she is to be deemed to be an awardee of Shikshak Shree Award and thus the order impugned which indicates that the petitioner is not an awardee of Shikshak Shree Award and consequently is not entitled for extension of service is patently misconceived.

7. On the other hand, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, contends that although the name of the petitioner along with several others found place in the said list as referred to above yet she and others were never formally awarded the said award and consequently the petitioner cannot be considered to be an awardee of Shikshak Shree Award so as to be considered for extension of service. In this regard Sri Ran Vijay Singh has contended that two alleged awardees namely Prof. Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Ms. Vandana Roy had approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.9189 of 2024 in re; Prof. Rajesh Kumar Pandey and another vs. State of U.P. and others, and this Court vide judgment and order dated 27.05.2025, a copy of which is part of Annexure-14 (Page 68) of the petition, has disposed of the writ petition by indicating that no mandamus or a direction for consideration for Shikshak Shree Award in favour of the petitioners can be issued meaning thereby that the writ Court had itself indicated in its order that the said petitioners were never the awardees of the said award.

8. Sri Singh contends that once the name of the petitioner along with other two persons is entered in the said list and there is a final judgment of this Court in the case of Prof. Rajesh Kumar Pandey (supra) indicating that no mandamus can be issued directing for awarding of the aforesaid award consequently keeping in view the findings as recorded by the writ Court it cannot be said that the petitioner along with others have ever been awarded the said award so as to be extended the benefit of two years extension in service.

9. Sri Singh prays for and is granted a week's time to seek specific instructions as to whether the award of Shikshak Shree was ever conferred upon the petitioner. List after a week as fresh indicating the name of Sri Lakshman Singh, learned counsel, in the cause list from the side of the respondents."

4. From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it emerges that the dispute pertains as to whether the award of Shikshak Shree was conferred upon the petitioner despite her name having been found in the list and newspaper reports also indicating the same.

5. Today, Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions sent by the Director, Higher Education, dated 08.07.2025, states that although the name of the petitioner along with several others had been included in the list of awardees, yet no formal declaration by the State Government was made and, consequently, the petitioner was not conferred with the award of Shikshak Shree.

6. Once the award has not been conferred, consequently there cannot be any occasion for interfering with the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 27.06.2025 for not granting extension in service to the petitioner on the ground of she not being an awardee of the Shikshak Shree Award.

7. The writ petition is dismissed. [Abdul Moin, J.] Order Date :- 18.7.2025 cks/- CHANDRA KANT SINGH CHANDRA KANT SINGH CHANDRA KANT SINGH CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench