Shailendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

behalf of the petitioner today which is taken on record. Sri P.K. Tiwari, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.7 which is also taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.1, Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2, 3 & 4 and Sri R.K. Suryavanshi, learned counsel for opposite party no.5.

3. On 02.02.2012, an interim order was passed by this Court in the following terms:- "Notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 has been accepted by Sri S.P. Singh, on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, by the learned Chief Standing Counsel, on behalf of respondent no.7, by Sri Surya Prakash Singh and on behalf of respondent no.5, by Sri H.S. Jain. Issue notice to respondent no.6. Considering the plea of the appellant that the Committee of Management in its requisition has not reserved any vacancy in favour of Scheduled Caste and the District Inspector of Schools without getting it verified from the Committee of Management, of his own while forwarding the requisition, mentioned the post in question as reserved 2 SPLA No. 51 of 2012 and that the Board even thereafter being satisfied that it was a post of general category, issued the advertisement as such, against which the appellant applied and was selected and that he had joined as duly selected candidate on the post in question on 1.1.2011 and that respondent no.1 being only adhoc teacher working on the said post, we are, prima facie, satisfied that respondent no.1 has no locus standi to challenge the selection and that the selected candidate cannot be ousted from service on the aforesaid plea. We, therefore, stay the operation of the order dated 18.1.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, and direct that the appellant shall be allowed to continue on the said post, till further orders of the Court. "

4. The appellant is working in pursuance thereof.

5. On 14.11.2025, we had passed the following order:- "Heard. This is a special appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 18.01.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.132 (S/S) of 2011 [Shailendra Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors.]. The facts of the case in brief are that one Shailendra Singh was appointed on adhoc basis as Assistant Teacher (Biology) in Sri Bheemsen Inter College Badgaon, District- Chhatrapati Sahujee Maharajnagar (at present Amethi). He filed a petition bearing Writ Petition No.3006 (S/S) of 2008 seeking salary for the post of Assistant Teacher on which he claims to have been appointed on ad-hoc basis. An interim order was passed therein to the effect that he shall be paid salary till regularly selected candidate is available from the Commission. Thereafter, the appellant before us, namely, Neeraj Kumar Singh was selected for the post of Assistant Teacher (Biology) and as per the panel dated 12.11.2010/ placement order, he was assigned the aforesaid institution for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Biology) now known as Trained Graduate Teacher (T.G.T.), Biology. However, this panel/ placement dated 13.11.2010 was put to challenge by Shailendra Singh by means of another petition bearing Writ Petition No.132 (S/S) of 2011 on the ground that requisition was for a reserved candidate to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Biology) in the aforesaid college whereas the appellant herein who was respondent no.7 in the aforesaid writ petition was an unreserved category candidate. The above mentioned petition bearing Writ Petition No.132 (S/S) of 2011 was allowed 3 SPLA No. 51 of 2012 on 18.01.2012 accepting the contention of Sri Shailendra Singh that he has been working and getting salary in terms of interim order passed in the earlier writ petition with the finding that candidature of respondent no.7 who belonged to unreserved category cannot be treated as duly selected for the post of Assistant Teacher (Biology) in the aforesaid college as the requisition in respect thereof was for a reserved candidate. Accordingly, the petition of Shailendra Singh was allowed. However, subsequently, as has been informed by Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant writ petition of Shailendra Singh referred hereinabove pertaining to payment of salary has been dismissed along with other writ petitions vide a detailed judgment dated 03.05.2012. The said Shailendra Singh who is a respondent in the appeal is represented by Sri R.P. Singh, Advocate. He fairly submitted that the earlier writ petition has been dismissed and his client is no longer working in the institution. Now, the only question which remains to be considered is as to whether the requisition sent through the D.I.O.S. to the Commission for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Biology) was for a reserved candidate or unreserved candidate. In this regard, we find that there are two documents dated 21.02.2006 with requisition in required form appended therewith. However, in one of the requisition forms the post is mentioned as reserved for Scheduled Tribes while in the other it is mentioned as Unreserved. Both the documents cannot be correct and genuine. Let the Commission and D.I.O.S., Amethi produce the original requisition dated

21.02.2006 bearing Letter Ma. Amethi/12442-43/2005-06. None has appeared on behalf of Committee of Management of Sri Bheemsen Inter College Badgaon, District-Chhatrapati Sahujee Maharajnagar. The D.I.O.S. shall intimate the Committee of Management about these proceedings. It would be better if the Principal of the said college appears with the relevant records as mentioned hereinabove before this Court on the next date. The D.I.O.S. to intimate the principal of the aforesaid college. Sri R.P. Singh says that he will also intimate the college. Receipt / Dispatch/ Dak register shall also be produced. List this case on 09.12.2025 amongst first ten cases of the day."

6. Today, records have been produced before us by the Principal of the Institution and D.I.O.S, Amethi who are present. As per the said records, two requisitions were sent, one for the post of Social Science and the 4 SPLA No. 51 of 2012 other for Biology and it is these two requisitions which were annexed with the appeal along with the covering letter of D.I.O.S. dated

21.02.2006 by which they were sent to the Secretary of the U.P. Madhyamik Siksha Sewa Chayan Board. Due to inadvertence, we could not notice the fact that two requisitions annexed with the covering letter pertained to two different posts and therefore, the confusion as noticed in our order dated 14.11.2025 referred hereinabove.

7. Today, we find that in the requisition pertaining to post of Assistant Teacher (Biology), the Principal of the Institution had not mentioned as to whether the post which were proposed to be filled by the Board was reserved or unreserved but as per the photocopy of the covering letter dated 21.02.2006 sent by the D.I.O.S., the post of Biology was mentioned as reserved and in the requisition pertaining thereto which is appended to the said covering letter, also, the D.I.O.S. is said to have made an endorsement to that effect. The original containing the said endorsement of the D.I.O.S. and the original covering letter are not available obviously because of lapse of time. The original requisition sent by the Principal which has been placed before us shows that total number of posts in the L.T. Grade were thirteen, out of which, ten were filled up. We asked learned counsel for the appellants as also learned counsel for the opposite parties as to how many out of these ten posts were filled up by the reserved category candidate at the time of sending of the requisition. They responded that one person of the reserved category was appointed, meaning thereby, two posts were still to be reserved. Although, there were three vacancies, only two requisitions were sent pertaining to the post of Assistant Teacher (Social Science) and Assistant Teacher (Biology). The post of Assistant Teacher (Social Science) was treated as unreserved and the post of Assistant Teacher (Biology) was treated as reserved by D.I.O.S. The third vacancy had not been advertised. We further asked learned counsel for the opposite parties as to what is the position as of now whereupon the Principal informed us that out of thirteen sanctioned posts, seven are vacant. She also informed that in fact one person of reserved category is working and two others of reserved category had been appointed who got themselves transferred, meaning thereby, out of thirteen, three vacancies/ posts were filled by the reserved category 5 SPLA No. 51 of 2012 candidates and as of now, there are two vacancies against the said quota. As there are seven vacancies in the said L.T. Grade, we are of the opinion that the reservation quota can be filled up against the said vacancies.

8. Considering the fact that the appellant has been working in pursuance of the order dated 13.12.2010 after being selected and appointed as per rules by the Board and there is no illegality in his selection but for the dispute raised before the learned Single Judge as referred in the impugned judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.132 (S/S) of 2011 [Shailendra Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors.], we are of the opinion that he shall be treated as validly appointed against the post of Assistant Teacher (Biology) from the date of his initial appointment, with continuity in service and shall be paid all his emoluments and other service benefits for the period he was worked, accordingly. The post of Assistant Teacher (Biology) shall accordingly be treated as unreserved and the appellant herein shall be treated as appointed against the said post and shall be extended all benefits to which he may be entitled as per rules. This does not prejudice the case of Sri Shailendra Singh-respondent because he is no longer in service as noticed in the earlier order quoted above and his Writ Petition No.3006 (S/S) of 2008 has already been dismissed. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment is quashed. The writ petition filed by Shailendra Singh is dismissed.

9. Special appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. December 9, 2025 Shanu/- (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

behalf of the petitioner today which is taken on record. Sri P.K. Tiwari, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.7 which is also taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.1, Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2, 3 & 4 and Sri R.K. Suryavanshi, learned counsel for opposite party no.5.

3. On 02.02.2012, an interim order was passed by this Court in the following terms:- "Notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 has been accepted by Sri S.P. Singh, on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, by the learned Chief Standing Counsel, on behalf of respondent no.7, by Sri Surya Prakash Singh and on behalf of respondent no.5, by Sri H.S. Jain. Issue notice to respondent no.6. Considering the plea of the appellant that the Committee of Management in its requisition has not reserved any vacancy in favour of Scheduled Caste and the District Inspector of Schools without getting it verified from the Committee of Management, of his own while forwarding the requisition, mentioned the post in question as reserved 2 SPLA No. 51 of 2012 and that the Board even thereafter being satisfied that it was a post of general category, issued the advertisement as such, against which the appellant applied and was selected and that he had joined as duly selected candidate on the post in question on 1.1.2011 and that respondent no.1 being only adhoc teacher working on the said post, we are, prima facie, satisfied that respondent no.1 has no locus standi to challenge the selection and that the selected candidate cannot be ousted from service on the aforesaid plea. We, therefore, stay the operation of the order dated 18.1.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, and direct that the appellant shall be allowed to continue on the said post, till further orders of the Court. "

4. The appellant is working in pursuance thereof.

5. On 14.11.2025, we had passed the following order:- "Heard. This is a special appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 18.01.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.132 (S/S) of 2011 [Shailendra Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors.]. The facts of the case in brief are that one Shailendra Singh was appointed on adhoc basis as Assistant Teacher (Biology) in Sri Bheemsen Inter College Badgaon, District- Chhatrapati Sahujee Maharajnagar (at present Amethi). He filed a petition bearing Writ Petition No.3006 (S/S) of 2008 seeking salary for the post of Assistant Teacher on which he claims to have been appointed on ad-hoc basis. An interim order was passed therein to the effect that he shall be paid salary till regularly selected candidate is available from the Commission. Thereafter, the appellant before us, namely, Neeraj Kumar Singh was selected for the post of Assistant Teacher (Biology) and as per the panel dated 12.11.2010/ placement order, he was assigned the aforesaid institution for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Biology) now known as Trained Graduate Teacher (T.G.T.), Biology. However, this panel/ placement dated 13.11.2010 was put to challenge by Shailendra Singh by means of another petition bearing Writ Petition No.132 (S/S) of 2011 on the ground that requisition was for a reserved candidate to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Biology) in the aforesaid college whereas the appellant herein who was respondent no.7 in the aforesaid writ petition was an unreserved category candidate. The above mentioned petition bearing Writ Petition No.132 (S/S) of 2011 was allowed 3 SPLA No. 51 of 2012 on 18.01.2012 accepting the contention of Sri Shailendra Singh that he has been working and getting salary in terms of interim order passed in the earlier writ petition with the finding that candidature of respondent no.7 who belonged to unreserved category cannot be treated as duly selected for the post of Assistant Teacher (Biology) in the aforesaid college as the requisition in respect thereof was for a reserved candidate. Accordingly, the petition of Shailendra Singh was allowed. However, subsequently, as has been informed by Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant writ petition of Shailendra Singh referred hereinabove pertaining to payment of salary has been dismissed along with other writ petitions vide a detailed judgment dated 03.05.2012. The said Shailendra Singh who is a respondent in the appeal is represented by Sri R.P. Singh, Advocate. He fairly submitted that the earlier writ petition has been dismissed and his client is no longer working in the institution. Now, the only question which remains to be considered is as to whether the requisition sent through the D.I.O.S. to the Commission for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Biology) was for a reserved candidate or unreserved candidate. In this regard, we find that there are two documents dated 21.02.2006 with requisition in required form appended therewith. However, in one of the requisition forms the post is mentioned as reserved for Scheduled Tribes while in the other it is mentioned as Unreserved. Both the documents cannot be correct and genuine. Let the Commission and D.I.O.S., Amethi produce the original requisition dated

21.02.2006 bearing Letter Ma. Amethi/12442-43/2005-06. None has appeared on behalf of Committee of Management of Sri Bheemsen Inter College Badgaon, District-Chhatrapati Sahujee Maharajnagar. The D.I.O.S. shall intimate the Committee of Management about these proceedings. It would be better if the Principal of the said college appears with the relevant records as mentioned hereinabove before this Court on the next date. The D.I.O.S. to intimate the principal of the aforesaid college. Sri R.P. Singh says that he will also intimate the college. Receipt / Dispatch/ Dak register shall also be produced. List this case on 09.12.2025 amongst first ten cases of the day."

6. Today, records have been produced before us by the Principal of the Institution and D.I.O.S, Amethi who are present. As per the said records, two requisitions were sent, one for the post of Social Science and the 4 SPLA No. 51 of 2012 other for Biology and it is these two requisitions which were annexed with the appeal along with the covering letter of D.I.O.S. dated

21.02.2006 by which they were sent to the Secretary of the U.P. Madhyamik Siksha Sewa Chayan Board. Due to inadvertence, we could not notice the fact that two requisitions annexed with the covering letter pertained to two different posts and therefore, the confusion as noticed in our order dated 14.11.2025 referred hereinabove.

7. Today, we find that in the requisition pertaining to post of Assistant Teacher (Biology), the Principal of the Institution had not mentioned as to whether the post which were proposed to be filled by the Board was reserved or unreserved but as per the photocopy of the covering letter dated 21.02.2006 sent by the D.I.O.S., the post of Biology was mentioned as reserved and in the requisition pertaining thereto which is appended to the said covering letter, also, the D.I.O.S. is said to have made an endorsement to that effect. The original containing the said endorsement of the D.I.O.S. and the original covering letter are not available obviously because of lapse of time. The original requisition sent by the Principal which has been placed before us shows that total number of posts in the L.T. Grade were thirteen, out of which, ten were filled up. We asked learned counsel for the appellants as also learned counsel for the opposite parties as to how many out of these ten posts were filled up by the reserved category candidate at the time of sending of the requisition. They responded that one person of the reserved category was appointed, meaning thereby, two posts were still to be reserved. Although, there were three vacancies, only two requisitions were sent pertaining to the post of Assistant Teacher (Social Science) and Assistant Teacher (Biology). The post of Assistant Teacher (Social Science) was treated as unreserved and the post of Assistant Teacher (Biology) was treated as reserved by D.I.O.S. The third vacancy had not been advertised. We further asked learned counsel for the opposite parties as to what is the position as of now whereupon the Principal informed us that out of thirteen sanctioned posts, seven are vacant. She also informed that in fact one person of reserved category is working and two others of reserved category had been appointed who got themselves transferred, meaning thereby, out of thirteen, three vacancies/ posts were filled by the reserved category 5 SPLA No. 51 of 2012 candidates and as of now, there are two vacancies against the said quota. As there are seven vacancies in the said L.T. Grade, we are of the opinion that the reservation quota can be filled up against the said vacancies.

8. Considering the fact that the appellant has been working in pursuance of the order dated 13.12.2010 after being selected and appointed as per rules by the Board and there is no illegality in his selection but for the dispute raised before the learned Single Judge as referred in the impugned judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.132 (S/S) of 2011 [Shailendra Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors.], we are of the opinion that he shall be treated as validly appointed against the post of Assistant Teacher (Biology) from the date of his initial appointment, with continuity in service and shall be paid all his emoluments and other service benefits for the period he was worked, accordingly. The post of Assistant Teacher (Biology) shall accordingly be treated as unreserved and the appellant herein shall be treated as appointed against the said post and shall be extended all benefits to which he may be entitled as per rules. This does not prejudice the case of Sri Shailendra Singh-respondent because he is no longer in service as noticed in the earlier order quoted above and his Writ Petition No.3006 (S/S) of 2008 has already been dismissed. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment is quashed. The writ petition filed by Shailendra Singh is dismissed.

9. Special appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. December 9, 2025 Shanu/- (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench