# Govind Raman Tripathi, Assistant Teacher v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 849
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-11
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 11555 of 2019
- **Bench:** Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/govind-raman-tripathi-assistant-teacher-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51495
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment
and
Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules,
1978 - Rule 10(5)(iii) - Deemed Approval -
Scope.

Held : Deemed approval comes into play only
where there is total inaction by the District Basic
Education Officer. If DBEO communicates a
decision within one month - whether to
approve, disapprove, or withhold approval for
reasons recorded - the deeming fiction does not
apply. (Paras 25, 26, 27)

B. Assistant Teacher - Appointment without
approval - Effect.
Where DBEO withheld approval citing low
student strength and referred matter to Director
of Education (Basic), subsequent appointment
order issued by Committee of Management
before expiry of period reckoned from last
communication
(30.7.2018)
-
Appointment
cannot be treated as validly approved. Petitioner
not entitled to salary from St. exchequer. (Paras
26, 27, 28)

Writ Petitions Dismissed. No interference
warranted in orders dated 22.5.2019,
17.7.2019 and 19.9.2019.

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

2 All. Govind Raman Tripathi, Assistant Teacher Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
849
shall be scarcity of Assistant Teachers in
backward districts which obviously affect
the educational interest of the students and
taking into the aforesaid situation, the
aforesaid decision has been taken.

11. That in the light of the provisions
contained under point no. 2(4) of the Transfer
Policy framed vide Government Order dated
02.06.2023, as a result after calculating the 10%
strength of Assistant Teachers as against the
working teachers, vacancies in the so-called
districts were declared "Zero". For the kind
perusal of this Hon'ble Court a photo copy of the
chart showing the details of vacancies in those
different districts are being filed and marked as
Annexure-CA-2 to this counter affidavit."

9. In order to interfere with a decision
taken by the respondents in pursuance of referred
clause of transfer policy, petitioners have to show
that such decision is arbitrary and absolutely
contrary to the transfer policy.

10. The figures mentioned in regard to
sanctioned strength and working strength are not
in dispute. In some of the districts, working
strength is more than sanctioned strength.
Therefore, State's decision not to allow incoming
transfer cannot be said to be arbitrary since these
group of districts have been created on the basis of
comparison of sanctioned strength and working
strength which is in tune of referred paragraph that
10% has to be considered in terms of sanctioned
posts and strength of working teachers.

11. In case of a particular district, where
there are surplus working strength, if by process of
inter-district transfer more teachers are allowed to
join, the strength may further increase Ratio of
working teachers viz.-a-viz. sanctioned strength
will remain high which cannot be done by way of
transfer.

12. In the policy, words are carefully used
that transfer will be allowed upto 10% only in
comparison of sanctioned posts viz.-a-viz.
working strength.

13. The teachers have joined a particular
district (being selected district wise) with open
eyes. They have no right to work at their desired
district. The transfer policy is a policy of a welfare
State and in absence of any evident arbitrariness or
a clause contrary to law, there is no scope to
interfere with any clause of a transfer policy. As
discussed above, there is no arbitrariness in
framing of concerned clause or its interpretation.

11. In the above background of analysis and
taking note of the judgement passed by this Court
in Shraddha Yadav (supra), this Court does not
find any substantive material which could warrant
interference with a decision taken by the State in
pursuance of the referred clause of transfer policy,
therefore, no interference is warranted and
accordingly, all writ petitions are dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 849
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ - A No. 11555 of 2019
With
Writ - A No. 15498 of 2019
And
Writ - A No. 20414 of 2019

Govind Raman Tripathi, Assistant Teacher
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prabhakar Awasthi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Deepak Kumar, Sri Santosh
Kumar
850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment
and
Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules,
1978 - Rule 10(5)(iii) - Deemed Approval -
Scope.

Held : Deemed approval comes into play only
where there is total inaction by the District Basic
Education Officer. If DBEO communicates a
decision within one month - whether to
approve, disapprove, or withhold approval for
reasons recorded - the deeming fiction does not
apply. (Paras 25, 26, 27)

B. Assistant Teacher - Appointment without
approval - Effect.
Where DBEO withheld approval citing low
student strength and referred matter to Director
of Education (Basic), subsequent appointment
order issued by Committee of Management
before expiry of period reckoned from last
communication
(30.7.2018)
-
Appointment
cannot be treated as validly approved. Petitioner
not entitled to salary from St. exchequer. (Paras
26, 27, 28)

Writ Petitions Dismissed. No interference
warranted in orders dated 22.5.2019,
17.7.2019 and 19.9.2019.

Case Law Discussed:

1. Prem Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2019) 10 SCC 516
- distinguished.

2. Relevant provisions of Rule 10 of 1978 Rules
examined.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the Respondents No.1 to 3
and learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.4.

2.

Petitioner
through
Writ-A
No.11555 of 2019 has challenged the order
dated 22.5.2019 passed by the District
Basic Education Officer, Shahjahanpur,
whereby petitioner's case for payment of
salary of the post of Assistant Teacher has
been rejected.

3. Petitioners through Writ-A No.
15498 of 2019 have challenged the order
dated 17.7.2019 passed by the District
Basic Education Officer, Shahjahanpur,
whereby direction has been issued to
Manager of the Committee of Management
of Sri Vishwanath Junior High School,
Shahjahanpur to cancel the appointment of
Mr. Govind Raman Tripathi on the post of
Assistant Teacher.

4. Petitioner through Writ- A No.
20414 of 2019 has challenged the order
dated 19.9.2019 passed by the Director of
Education
(Basic),
U.P.,
Lucknow,
whereby
it
has
been
provided
that
appointment of the petitioner on the post of
Assistant Teacher cannot be approved.

5. Since the aforesaid all the writ
petitions are related with the approval of
the appointment of Mr. Govind Raman
Tripathi on the post of Assistant Teacher in
Sri Vishwanath Junior High School,
Shahjahanpur and all the writ petitions
have been connected by the order passed by
this court therefore, they are being decided
together.

6. Facts of the case, in brief, are that
one post of Assistant Teacher in Sri
Vishwanath
Junior
High
School,
Shahjahanpur (hereinafter referred to as
'the school') fell vacant on 30.6.2015. The
District
Basic
Education
Officer,
Shahjahanpur vide order dated 1.4.2016
granted permission for making appointment
on the aforesaid vacant post of Assistant
Teacher. An advertisement for the selection
and appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher in the school was published on
2 All. Govind Raman Tripathi, Assistant Teacher Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
851
7.6.2018 in the Newspaper 'Spasht Awaz',
on 8.6.2018 in the Newspaper 'Divya
Prakash'
and
on
10.6.2018
in
the
Newspaper 'Pioneer'. The District Basic
Education Officer, Shahjahanpur vide order
dated 2.6.2018 has appointed Sri Suresh
Chandra, Block Education Officer as his
nominee in the selection committee for the
appointment in question.

7. The selection committee conducted
interviews of the candidates and prepared
merit list and thereby recommended name
of Mr. Govind Raman Tripathi for
appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher in the school. The Committee of
Management of the school considered the
recommendations made by the selection
committee in its meeting held on 29.6.2018
and accepted the recommendations. The
Manager of the Committee of Management
of the school vide his letter dated 2.7.2018
forwarded the papers relating to the
selection of Mr. Govind Raman Tripathi to
District
Basic
Education
Officer,
Shahjahanpur for his approval. The District
Basic Education Officer, Shahjahanpur
vide his letter dated 23.7.2018 responded to
the
Manager
of
the
Committee
of
Management of the school and informed
that since the strength of the students in the
school is very low therefore, the matter has
been referred to the Director of Education
(Basic), U.P., Lucknow for his guidance
and only after the Director of Education
(Basic), U.P., Lucknow provides guidance
in the matter, the decision over the matter
of approval of selection will be taken.

8. The Manager of the Committee of
Management of the school vide his letter
dated 30.7.2018 submitted his explanation
in response to the letter of the District
Basic Education Officer, Shahjahanpur
dated
23.7.2018
and
requested
that
selection in question be approved so that
appointment may be made against the
vacant post. Since there was no response by
the District Basic Education Officer,
Shahjahanpur
after
the
letter
dated
23.7.2018, the Manager of the school
issued appointment order on 14.8.2018,
whereby Mr. Govind Raman Tripathi was
appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher
in the school. Pursuant to appointment
order dated 14.8.2018, Mr. Govind Raman
Tripathi joined on the post of Assistant
Teacher in the school on 16.8.2018.

9. Since in spite of working of Mr.
Govind Raman Tripathi on the post of
Assistant Teacher in the school, his salary
was
not
released,
he
submitted
representation
to
the
District
Basic
Education Officer, Shahjahanpur and in
response
thereof,
the
District
Basic
Education Officer, Shahjahanpur passed an
order on 22.5.2019, wherein he has stated
that since appointment of Mr. Govind
Raman Tripathi on the post of Assistant
Teacher has been made without there being
mandatory approval of the District Basic
Education Officer, Shahjahanpur therefore,
the said appointment is illegal and
accordingly, it has been held that Mr.
Govind Raman Tripathi is not entitled for
payment
of
salary
from
the
State
exchequer.

10. The order dated 22.5.2019 passed
by the District Basic Education Officer,
Shahjahanpur has been challenged by Mr.
Govind Raman Tripathi by filing Writ-A
No.11555 of 2019.

11. While the aforesaid Writ-A
No.11555 of 2019 was pending before this
court, the District Basic Education Officer,
Shahjahanpur has passed another order on
17.7.2019,
whereby
he
directed
the
852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Manager of the Committee of Management
of the school to cancel the appointment of
Mr.
Govind
Raman
Tripathi.
The
Committee of Management of the school as
well as Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Manager of the
Committee of Management of the school
have filed Writ-A No. 15498 of 2019,
whereby they have challenged the aforesaid
order dated 17.7.2019.

12. This court while hearing Writ-A
No.11555 of 2019 passed an order on
19.8.2018 in the following terms:-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent no. 1 and Sri Santosh
Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent
nos. 2 and 3.

It appears that the approval
sought with respect to the appointment of
the petitioner by respondent no.4 has not
been granted by the District Basic
Education Officer, Shahjahanpur on an
opinion that the Director of Education
(Basic) has yet not issued any directions
with respect to the clarification that had
been sought from him.

In view of the above, matter
requires consideration.

Issue notice to the respondent
no.4 returnable within four weeks. Steps be
taken within one week.

In the meantime, respondents
may file counter affidavits.

List this case on 20.09.2019.

In the meanwhile, it is provided
that the petitioner may serve a copy of this
order to the Director of Education (Basic)
within a period of two weeks from today.
Upon service being made, the Director of
Education (Basic) shall pass appropriate
order/directions to the District Basic
Education Officer with respect to the
clarification that may have been sought by
that authority from the said Director with
respect to the petitioner's appointment.

It is expected that the such
direction may be placed on record on the
next date fixed."

13. The Director of Education
(Basic), U.P., Lucknow in compliance of
the aforesaid order dated 19.8.2019 passed
in Writ-A No.11555 of 2019 has passed an
order on 19.9.2019, whereby it has been
held that strength of the students in the
school is very low therefore, as per
standards
prescribed
under
Right
of
Children
to
Free
and
Compulsory
Education
Act,
2009,
there
is
no
requirement
of
appointment
of
the
Assistant
Teacher
in
the
school,
accordingly
petitioner's
selection/appointment cannot be approved.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has pointed out that the school in
question is being run by a Society
registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860 through a validly elected
Committee of Management. The school is
receiving
grant-in-aid
from
the
Government of U.P. The terms and
conditions of the appointment and service
of the teachers working in the school are
governed by the U.P. Recognized Basic
Schools
(Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Teachers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Rules of 1978').

15. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that Rule 10 of the
Rules of 1978 provides the procedure for
selection and appointment on the post of
Assistant Teacher. He has further submitted
that under the aforesaid Rule 10 of the
Rules of 1978, after selection, the papers of
selection are to be forwarded to the District
2 All. Govind Raman Tripathi, Assistant Teacher Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
853
Basic Education Officer for approval and
Rule 10 (5)(iii) of the Rules of 1978
categorically provides that if the District
Basic
Education
Officer
does
not
communicate his decision within one
month from the date of receipt of papers
under Clause (4), he shall be deemed to
have
accorded
approval
to
the
recommendations made by the selection
committee.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has argued that the Manager of
the Committee of Management of the
school forwarded papers relating to the
selection of Mr. Govind Raman Tripathi on
the post of Assistant Teacher to the District
Basic Education Officer, Shahjahanpur on
2.7.2018
and
since
he
has
not
communicated his decision within one
month from the date of receipt of papers,
the selection in question stood deemed
approved and therefore, after expiry of
period of one month from 2.7.2018, the
Manager of the Committee of Management
of the school has issued appointment order
on 14.8.2018 and in pursuance thereof,
petitioner has joined on the post of
Assistant Teacher in the school on
16.8.2018.

16. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has vehemently argued that since
selection of the petitioner for appointment
on the post of Assistant Teacher in the
school stood deemed approved as per
provisions made in Rule 10 (5)(iii) of the
Rules of 1978 and petitioner with effect
from 16.8.2018 is continuously discharging
duties of the post of Assistant Teacher in
the school, he is entitled for payment of
salary form the State exchequer with effect
from 16.8.2018. Learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner has further argued that the
District
Basic
Education
Officer,
Shahjahanpur while passing orders dated
22.5.2019 and 17.7.2019 denying payment
of salary to the petitioner and directing the
Committee of Management of the school to
cancel petitioner's appointment, has acted
in gross violation of provisions of the Rule
10 (5)(iii) of the Rules of 1978 accordingly,
the said orders are not sustainable in the
eyes of law.

17. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has also argued before this court
that the Director of Education (Basic),
U.P., Lucknow has passed order on
19.9.2019 without even considering the fact
that the petitioner's selection on the post of
Assistant Teacher stood approved as per
provisions of the Rule 10 (5)(iii) of the
Rules of 1978 therefore, the said order
dated 19.9.2019 cannot sustain in the eyes
of law.

18. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has thus concluded his arguments
and has submitted that since petitioner's
selection for appointment on the post of
Assistant Teacher in the school stood
approved by operation of law i.e. under
provisions of the Rule 10 (5)(iii) of the
Rules of 1978 therefore, the orders
impugned in the writ petitions, are not
sustainable in the eyes of law and writ
petitions filed by the petitioners are liable
to be allowed by this court with a direction
to the District Basic Education Officer,
Shahjahanpur to release petitioner's salary
forthwith along with arrears of salary.

19. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel
appearing
for
the
State
respondents has submitted that Rule 10
(5)(iii) of the Rules of 1978 provides that if
the District Basic Education Officer does
not communicate his decision within one
month from the date of receipt of papers
854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under clause (4), he shall be deemed to
have
accorded
approval
to
the
recommendations made by the selection
committee and in the present case, papers
relating to the selection of Mr. Govind
Raman Tripathi were forwarded to the
District
Basic
Education
Officer,
Shahjahanpur on 2.7.2018 and immediately
thereafter the District Basic Education
Officer, Shahjahanpur communicated his
decision on 23.7.2018 to withhold the
approval of the selection for the reason that
strength of the students in the school is
very low and he has sought guidance in the
matter from the Director of Education
(Basic),
U.P.,
Lucknow
therefore,
provisions of Rule 10 (5)(iii) of the Rules
of 1978 are not attracted and accordingly,
selection of Mr. Govind Raman Tripathi for
appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher cannot be considered to be deemed
approved.

20. Learned Standing Counsel has
further invited attention of this court that
papers of the selection were forwarded to
the District Basic Education Officer,
Shahjahanpur on 2.7.2018 and in response
thereof, he communicated his decision to
withhold the approval and reasons thereof,
vide his letter dated 23.7.2018 and
thereafter, the Manager of the Committee
of Management of the school vide his letter
dated 30.7.2018 submitted his response to
the reasons given in the letter dated
23.7.2018 and thereafter, without even
waiting for expiry of the period of one
month from 30.7.2018, the Manager of the
Committee of Management of the school
straightaway issued appointment order on
14.8.2018 therefore, selection of Mr.
Govind Raman Tripathi on the post of
Assistant Teacher cannot be treated to be
deemed approved under Rule 10 (5)(iii) of
the Rules of 1978.

21. Learned Standing Counsel has
also submitted before this court that since
after submission of the papers on 2.7.2018
relating to the selection, the District Basic
Education Officer, Shahjahanpur vide his
letter dated 23.7.2018 communicated his
decision to withhold the approval of
selection for certain reasons and in
response thereof, the Manager of the school
submitted more information vide his letter
dated 30.7.2018 therefore, if the provisions
of deemed approval are to be attracted, one
month time shall be counted with effect
from 30.7.2018, whereas even before one
month time appointment order was issued
on 14.8.2018 therefore, there is no scope
for applying provisions of Rule 10 (5)(iii)
of the Rules of 1978 and treating the
selection in question to have been deemed
approved.

22. Learned Standing Counsel has
vehemently argued that since strength of
the students in the school is very low and
there are sufficient number of teachers
working in the school as per norms
provided under Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
therefore, the District Basic Education
Officer, Shahjahanpur as well as the
Director of Education (Basic), U.P.,
Lucknow
have
disapproved
the
selection in question and have denied
the payment of salary to Mr. Govind
Raman
Tripathi
from
the
State
exchequer.

23. Learned Standing Counsel has
thus concluded his arguments and has
submitted that provisions of Rule 10 (5)(iii)
of the Rules of 1978 are not applicable in
the present case and the writ petitions filed
by
the
petitioners
being
absolutely
misconceived are liable to be dismissed by
this court.
2 All. Govind Raman Tripathi, Assistant Teacher Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
855

24. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsels appearing for the parties and I find
that the case of Mr. Govind Raman Tripathi
is that since papers of his selection on the
post of Assistant Teacher were forwarded
to the District Basic Education Officer,
Shahjahanpur on 2.7.2018 and since within
one month he did not take decision in
respect of approval of the selection
therefore, in view of the provisions of the
Rule 10 (5)(iii) of the Rules of 1978, his
selection stood deemed approved and
therefore, petitioner is entitled for payment
of salary from the State exchequer with
effect from 16.8.2018. For arriving at a
conclusion it is necessary to have a brief
look of the provisions made in Rule 10 of
the Rules of 1978. Rule 10 of the Rules of
1978 is extracted as under:-

10. Procedure for selection. -(1)
The Selection Committee shall, after
interviewing such candidates as appear
before it on a date to be fixed by it in this
behalf, of which due intimation shall be
given to all the candidates, prepare a list
containing as far as possible the names, in
order of preference, of three candidates
found to be suitable for appointment.

(2) The list prepared under
clause (1) shall also contain particulars
regarding the date of birth, academic
qualifications and teaching experience of
the candidates and shall be signed by all
the members of the Selection Committee.

(3) The Selection Committee
shall, as soon as possible, forward such
list, together with the minutes of the
proceedings of the Committee to the
management

(4) The Manager shall within one
week from the date of receipt of the papers
under clause (3) send a copy of the list to
the District Basic Education Officer.

(5) (i) If the District Basic
Education Officer is satisfied that-

(a) the candidates recommended
by the Selection Committee possess the
minimum qualifications prescribed for the
post;

(b) the procedure laid down in
these rules for the selection of Headmaster
or Assistant Teacher, as the case may be,
has been followed he shall accord approval
to the recommendations made by the
Selection
Committee
and
shall
communicate
his
decision
to
the
Management within two weeks from the
date of receipt of the papers under clause
(4).

(ii)
If
the
District
Basic
Education Officer is not satisfied as
aforesaid, he shall return the papers to the
Management with the direction that the
matter shall be reconsidered by the
Selection Committee.

(iii)
If
the
District
Basic
Education Officer does not communicate
his decision within one month from the date
of receipt of the papers under clause (4), he
shall be deemed to have accorded approval
to the recommendations made by the
Selection Committee."

25. This court finds that Rule 10
(5)(iii) of the Rules of 1978 provides that if
the District Basic Education Officer does
not communicate his decision within one
month from the date of receipt of papers
under clause (4), he shall be deemed to
have
accorded
approval
to
the
recommendations made by the selection
committee. The word 'decision' used in
Rule 10 (5)(iii) of the Rules of 1978 can
be the decision to approve the selection
or the decision to disapprove the
selection or the decision to withhold the
approval of the selection for certain
reasons.
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

26. This court further finds that
papers of the selection of Mr. Govind
Raman Tripathi for appointment on the post of
Assistant Teacher were forwarded by the
Manager of the Committee of Management of the
school to the District Basic Education Officer,
Shahjahanpur vide his letter dated 2.7.2018 and in
response thereof, the District Basic Education
Officer, Shahjahanpur promptly communicated
his decision to withhold the approval of the
selection for the reason that the strength of the
students in the school is very low and further he
has sought guidance in the matter from the head of
the department i.e. Director of Education (Basic),
U.P., Lucknow. Once the District Basic Education
Officer,
Shahjahanpur
after
2.7.2018
has
communicated his decision to withhold the
approval of selection vide his letter dated
23.7.2018, the question of selection having been
deemed approved under the provisions of Rule 10
(5)(iii) of the Rules of 1978 does not arise. Even
further pursuant to letter of the District Basic
Education Officer, Shahjahanpur dated 23.7.2018,
the Manager of the Committee of Management of
the school has provided certain information in
respect of reasons given in the letter dated
23.7.2018, vide his letter dated 30.7.2018
therefore, even if one month time for the purposes
of deemed approval is to be counted that will start
with effect from 30.7.2018 and before that, the
Manager of the Committee of Management of the
school has issued appointment order on 14.8.2018
in favour of Mr. Govind Raman Tripathi
therefore, the said selection cannot be treated to
have been deemed approved by operation of law
as provided under Rule 10 (5)(iii) of the Rules of
1978.

27. It is worth consideration that the
intention of the rule making authority in providing
for deemed approval of the selection under Rule
10 (5)(iii) of the Rules of 1978 is crystal clear that
there may be a situation of complete inaction on
the part of the competent authority in the matter of
approval of the selection, then in that case if one
month time has passed from the date of
submission of the papers of the selection, the
competent authority shall be deemed to have
approved the selection, but in the present case after
submission of the papers of the selection on
2.7.2018, the District Basic Education Officer,
Shahjahanpur considered the entire matter and
communicated his decision to withhold the
approval for certain reasons therefore, there did
not appear any inaction on the part of the District
Basic
Education
Officer,
Shahjahanpur,
accordingly the deeming clause provided under
Rule 10 (5)(iii) of the Rules of 1978 will not come
into play.

28. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this
court does not find any illegality in the impugned
orders dated 22.5.2019, 17.7.2019 and 19.9.2019
therefore, any interference by this court is not
warranted.

29. In the result, the writ petitions are
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 856
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 12652 of 2023
Writ - A No. 11530 of 2023
Writ - A No. 12873 of 2023
Writ - A No. 17354 of 2023
Writ - A No. 13399 of 2023

Archana Taliyan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajat Aren, Sri Raj Kumar Singh, Sri
Rishi
Srivastava