# Jubeda Bano v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 122
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-16
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 17495 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jubeda-bano-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47159
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C., Ajay Kumar, Ran Vijay Singh

A. Appointment - The petitioner has applied
for appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher in the Primary School. She declared
her percentage as per clause 13 of the
Government Order dated 04.12.2020 and
such declaration can be verified from her
educational documents itself. Therefore, her
candidature should not be rejected on the
basis of para-2(1) of the Government Order
dated 05.03.2021 rather, her candidature
should be considered in the light of the
Government Order dated 04.12.2020. (Para
12)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-8)

## Text

122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be excluded from consideration only on the
ground of their marital status."

5. Therefore, in view of the decision
of the Full Bench of this Court in re; Smt.
Vimla Srivastava (supra), I find that the
impugned order dated 7.1.2021 has not
been passed by the authority concerned
strictly in accordance with law. Therefore, I
hereby decide this writ petition finally at
the admission stage, with the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties, quashing/
setting aside the impugned order dated
7.1.2021 passed by the Personal Officer of
Madhyanchal
Vidyut
Vitran
Nigam
Limited, Lucknow, which is contained in
Annexure No.1 to the writ petition,
remanding back the same issue to the
competent authority concerned to consider
and decide the claim of the petitioner
strictly in accordance with law and also in
conformity with the decision of Full Bench
of this Court in re; Smt. Vimla Srivastava
(supra) and appropriate orders be passed
with expedition, preferably within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order and decision
thereof shall be communicated to the
petitioner
forthwith.
While
passing
appropriate order, required opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and other affected
person, if any, may be provided by the
authority concerned.

6. It is expected that if there is no
legal impediment, the appropriate order
shall be passed on the compassionate
ground in view of the observations made
herein above.

7. In the aforesaid terms, the writ
petition is disposed of.
----------
(2021)08ILR A122
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No. 17495 of 2021

Jubeda Bano ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Piyush Mishra, Amit Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ajay Kumar, Ran Vijay Singh

A. Appointment - The petitioner has applied
for appointment on the post of Assistant
Teacher in the Primary School. She declared
her percentage as per clause 13 of the
Government Order dated 04.12.2020 and
such declaration can be verified from her
educational documents itself. Therefore, her
candidature should not be rejected on the
basis of para-2(1) of the Government Order
dated 05.03.2021 rather, her candidature
should be considered in the light of the
Government Order dated 04.12.2020. (Para
12)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-8)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Piyush Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ran Vijay
Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for opposite party Nos.1 to 4 and
Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the
opposite party No.5.

2. On the first date of admission, this
Court
has
passed
the
order
dated
12.08.2021 as under:-
8 All. Jubeda Bano Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
123

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4, Sri Ranvijay
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2 and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel
for respondent No.5.

In compliance of the judgment
and order passed by this Court vide order
dated 14.12.2020 in Writ Petition No.11079
(S/S) of 2020, the respondent has passed
the impugned order dated 14.7.2021,
rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the respondent has not
applied its mind and in total disregard of
the direction issued by this Court, has
proceeded to pass the impugned order. Next
submission is that the petitioner has passed
his high school examination from the
C.B.S.E. Board. In the mark sheet, only
grade is provided and specified the
percentage
of
marks
grade-wise.
By
multiplying the total marks of the subject,
he filled up the marks obtained in the high
school in the application form, which has
not been taken into consideration while
passing the impugned order.

On the other hand, Sri Ranvijay
Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2
requested for the grant of one day time to
seek instruction in the matter and assured
this Court that in case the petitioner is
found eligible and qualified as per the
appendix framed under the 1981 Rules, his
claim shall be given consideration.

Accordingly, put up this matter as
fresh on 16.8.2021."

3. Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has
submitted that however he has not received
complete instructions in the matter but on
the basis of telephonic instructions he has
been apprised that the case of the petitioner
has been considered in terms of the
Government Order dated 05.03.2021 and
pointing out that the application form of the
petitioner has not been filled up as per the
documents relating to her examination, her
candidature has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has drawn attention of this Court towards
Annexure No.12 of the writ petition, which
is a final order dated 09.02.2021 passed by
this Court in the case of the petitioner
bearing Writ Petition No.3723 (S/S) of
2021; Jubeda Bano vs. State of U.P. &
others whereby the petitioner has raised her
bonafide grievance before the Court by
submitting that for the recruitment on the
post of Assistant Teacher by holding
written examination in the year 2019 she
applied for and got successful in the written
examination. In the application form, due
to inadvertence mistake she filled up the
column of percentage of marks despite the
requirement of total marks obtained out of
the marks of the subjects.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
had submitted before the Court in that writ
petition that in the case of marks shown in
the
percentage
is
calculated
as
per
requirement of the department, it will be
the same as 89.3%. Therefore, while
disposing of the said writ petition finally
giving liberty to the petitioner to approach
the Secretary, Basic Education Board,
Prayagraj taking shelter of the Government
Order dated 04.12.2020 and appropriate
decision was to be taken in terms of the
Government Order dated 04.12.2020.

6. In compliance of the aforesaid
order dated 09.02.2021, the petitioner
preferred a representation to the Competent
Authority but the said representation was
rejected by passing the impugned order
dated 14.07.2021 in the light of the
124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government
Order
dated
05.03.2021
instead of in the light of the Government
Order dated 04.12.2020.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has enclosed the Government Order dated
04.12.2020 as Annexure No.8 to the writ
petition
and
has
referred
clause-13
whereof, which clearly indicates and
mandates that in case of any factual
anomalies relating to counting the marks,
such marks of the candidates shall be
calculated on the basis of C.G.P.A.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for
the petitioner has drawn attention of this
Court towards the High School marksheet
of the petitioner wherein the Cumulative
Grand Point Average (C.G.P.A.) of the
petitioner is 9.4 and such C.G.P.A. shall be
multiplied by 9.5 in the case of the
petitioner. If 9.5 is multiplied with 9.4, the
marks of the petitioner would 89.3%.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further drawn attention of this Court
towards the application form of the
petitioner (Annexure No.4) wherein she has
declared her marks in the High School as
536 out of 600 and percentage there of
would be 89.3%. Since the marksheet
issued by the C.B.S.C. Board does not
indicate the total marks obtained by the
petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has got
no other option except to make calculation
on the basis of clause 13 of the
Government Order dated 04.12.2020.

10. Considering the aforesaid facts,
this Court has categorically directed to the
opposite parties vide judgment and order
dated 09.02.2021 (Annexure No.12) to
dispose of the issue of the petitioner in the
light of the Government Order dated
04.12.2020 but the issue of the petitioner
has been decided in the light of the
Government Order dated 05.03.2021.

11. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on the record, I find that the
petitioner has not misleaded the authorities
in her application form and she indicated
her percentage for the High School
marksheet strictly in accordance with
clause 13 of the Government Order dated
04.12.2020. As a matter of fact, the
petitioner had got no other option except to
declare her marks of High School in the
manner as indicated in the Government
Order dated 04.12.2020.

12. Even if the Government Order
dated 05.03.2021 (Annexure No.15) is seen
at this stage, para-1 thereof clearly
indicates that if any candidate discloses/
declares
his/
her
details
erroneously
without
having
relevant
documents
supporting the same, his/ her candidature
shall be cancelled, but in the preset case,
the petitioner was having her High School
marksheet and she categorically declares
her percentage as per the clause 13 of the
Government Order dated 04.12.2020 and
such declaration of the petitioner may be
verified from her educational documents
itself. Therefore, her case might have not
been rejected on the basis of para-2 (1) of
the Government Order dated 05.03.2021,
rather, her candidature should have been
considered in the light of the Government
Order dated 04.12.2020 in compliance of
the directions being issued by this Court
vide order dated 09.02.2021 passed in Writ
Petition No.3723 (S/S) of 2021 (Annexure
No.12).

13. Therefore, I do not find any good
ground to provide some more time to
learned counsel for the opposite parties to
8 All. Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. U.P. State Food & Essential Commodities Corp. & Ors.
125
seek further instructions and I decide this
writ petition finally at the admission stage
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
14.07.2021 passed by the Secretary, Basic
Education Board, Prayagraj, which is
contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ
petition. The direction is issued to the
Secretary,
Basic
Education
Board,
Prayagraj to consider the petitioner's
candidature for appointment on the post of
Assistant Teacher in the Primary School
run by the U.P. Basic Education Board by
passing such order within a period of three
weeks from the date of presentation of a
certified/ computerized copy of this order.

14. Since this order has been passed
considering
the
peculiar
facts
and
circumstances
of
the
present
issue,
therefore, this order may not be cited as
precedence in other cases.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.

16. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)08ILR A125
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN , J.

Service Single No. 17614 of 2021

Ashok Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. State Food & Essential Commodities
Corp. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mahendra Pratap Singh, Abhishek Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shreeprakash Singh

A. Service Law - Post-retiral dues - If
there is no provision, rules or regulations
authorizing the Competent Authority to
make deduction of any amount or to
punish employee after retirement on any
of the misconduct, no such order can be
passed against such employee after his
retirement. (para 7)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-8)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Bhagirath Jena Vs Board of directors, O.S.F.C.
& ors. (1999) 3 SCC 666 (followed)

2. Dev Prakash Tewari Vs Uttar Pradesh
Cooperative
Institutional
Service
Board,
Lucknow & ors. (2014) 7 SCC 260 (followed)

3. Shri Prakash Upadhyaya Vs St.of U.P. & ors.
Writ Petition No. 1106 (S/S) of 2021

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. This Court has passed the order
dated 13.08.2021 as under:-

"Heard Sri M.P. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Devak
Vardhan, Advocate holding brief of Sri
Shree Prakash Singh, learned counsel for
the opposite parties.

By means of this writ petition, the
petitioner has submitted that he was retired
from service on 31.12.2015, however, at
that point of time one departmental enquiry
against the petitioner was pending wherein
the charge-sheet dated 02.07.20215 was
served upon the petitioner on 08.09.2015.

Sri M.P. Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that that