# Krishna Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 465
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-29
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 1736 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-kumar-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52124
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law
-
UP
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 - Regulations framed
under the Act, 1921 - Reg. 21 - Benefit of
academic session - GO dated 30.12.2014
and Order dated 29.03.2022 - Applicability
- Petitioner's age of retirement was
extended to 65 years due to being St.
Teachers Awardee - Benefit of academic
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
session
claimed
after
65
years
-
Permissibility - Held, in the order dated
29th March 2022, the further benefit of the
'academic session' is not granted for the St.
Awardees Teachers, who are given the
extension of service, up till age of 65 years,
and therefore, in absence of any provision
for grant of benefit of academic session,
the same cannot be allowed to the
petitioner. (Para 20)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Krishna Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
465
Commission (hereinafter referred to
as 'NMC') and based on the 2020
guidelines, the respondent no. 3, vide
Government
Order
dated
30.11.2022
determined the sanctioned strength of
various faculty positions in the respondent
institute subsequently, the above noted
guidelines
are
superseded
and
new
guidelines have ben issued vide the order
dated 16.08.2023 and if, those are applied,
there would be material changes as per the
guideline of 16.08.2023. The sanctioned
strength of institute needs to be reconsidered
by the State Government as the earlier
Government Order dated 30.11.2022 has
been
superseded
and
therefore,
the
standardization Government Order issued
subsequently, would materially change the
sanctioning strength of the faculty members.
Thus, this Court finds that applying the
standardization Government Order dated
30.11.2022, which is said to be based on old
MCI guidelines of 2020 is an incorrect and
erroneous approach as subsequently, the
new guidelines have been issued on
16.08.2023, while superseding the earlier
one.

42. Apart from abve, this Court also
noticed that on 06.08.2018, Dr Chandra
Kant Pandey was appointed as Professor in
the department of critical care against an
unreserved category post of Professor and
after some period of time, Dr Pandey
resigned and the fact has not been denied
that huge grant has been accepted for
construction of Critical Care Unit, but no
post is advertised for Critical Care Unit
department, though, the aforesaid fact is
disputed by counsel for the Institute, while
stating that there is no sanctioned post in
critical care department in the institute and
therefore, the institute is not empower to
advertise any vacancy, without being any
sanctioned post .

43. In view of the aforesaid
submissions and discussion, this Court finds
merit in the writ petition, thus, the impugned
advertisement dated 01.12.2023 and the
rejection order dated 19.01.2024 issued by
respondent no. 6 are hereby quashed.

44. The writ petition is allowed
accordingly.

45. It is open to the 'Institute' to
issue a fresh advertisement, while strictly
following the provisions, relevant laws and
seeking
instructions
from
the
State
Government regarding the procedure and
manner, mandated to be prescribed under
section 3(1) of the 'Act 2021.'
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 465
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 1736 of 2024

Krishna Kumar Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amrendra Nath Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Raj Kr. Singh Suryavanshi, Surendra
Pratap Singh

A.
Service
Law
-
UP
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 - Regulations framed
under the Act, 1921 - Reg. 21 - Benefit of
academic session - GO dated 30.12.2014
and Order dated 29.03.2022 - Applicability
- Petitioner's age of retirement was
extended to 65 years due to being St.
Teachers Awardee - Benefit of academic
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
session
claimed
after
65
years
-
Permissibility - Held, in the order dated
29th March 2022, the further benefit of the
'academic session' is not granted for the St.
Awardees Teachers, who are given the
extension of service, up till age of 65 years,
and therefore, in absence of any provision
for grant of benefit of academic session,
the same cannot be allowed to the
petitioner. (Para 20)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dr. Murli Shyam Pathak Vs St. of U.P & ors.;
2019 7 ADJ 172

2. Nazir Ahmad Vs King-Emperor; 1936 SEC
OnLine PC 41

3. Chandra Kishore Jha Vs Mahavir Prasad & ors.;
(1999) 8 SCC 266

4.
Cherukuri
Mani
Vs
Chief
Secretary,
Government of Andra Pradesh & ors.; (2015) 13
SCC 722

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi,
Advocate assisted by Sri Sant Singh
Rayakwar,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh,
learned Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Vivek
Shukla, Sri Pankaj Patel and Sri Tushar
Verma, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsels for the State, Sri S.P. Singh,
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5
and Sri R.K. Singh Suryavanshi, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 4

2. Under challenge is the order dated
10th January 2024, whereby, the petitioner
was forced to unlawfully retired on 30th
April 2024, and further a writ of mandamus
is sought, commanding and directing the
respondent to allow the petitioner to
continue on his post of Ad-hoc Principal till
end
of
Academic
Session,
that
is
31.03.2025, in terms of Regulation 21 of the
Regulations framed under Chapter IIIrd of
the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921,
with full salary and other benefits.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the
petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer
(Agriculture), on 3rd March 1989, in Bakshi
Ka Talab Inter College District Lucknow,
thereafter, the service of the petitioner was
regularised with effect from 7th August
1993, by the order of Deputy Director
(Secondary
Education),
VIth
Region,
Lucknow, vide order dated 17th October
1994, and since then he was working to his
best of efficiency and his work and conduct
was always above board.

4. Later on, the petitioner was
recommended for State Teachers Award
2019-2020, and he was awarded with the
State Teachers Award on 3rd September
2020 and since, State Government had a
policy for the State Teachers Awardees for
extension of services till 65 years' of age,
which came into effect vide Government
Orders dated 30th December 2014 and 30th
June 2015, and in view thereof, the
petitioner was also accorded the extension
of services up to 65 years' of age, vide order
dated 29th March 2022, and thus, the
petitioner was to be retired on attaining the
age of 65 years, but the petitioner felt
aggrieved by the issuance of the retirement
notice dated 10th January 2024, wherein, the
date of superannuation, is shown as 30th
April 2024, on the premises that he is
entitled for the benefit of Academic Session,
that is up till 31th March 2025, in terms of
the provisions invisaged under Regulation
21 of the Regulations made under the UP
Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921
(hereinafter referred as Act, 1921).
5 All. Krishna Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
467

5. Contention of the counsel for the
petitioner
is
that
the
impugned
order/retirement notice dated 10th January
2024 is arbitrary, illegal and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the
same is passed in the most mechanical and
arbitrary manner. He submits that the
Regulation 21 of the Regulations framed
under Chapter IIIrd of the Act, 1921, very
specifically
provides
for
automatic
extension of service period, by way of
session benefits to those who are retiring
between second day of April and 30th March
of Academic Session. Therefore, the
retirement notice dated 10th January 2024,
wherein, the date of superannuation is
mentioned in between the aforesaid period
but no session benefit is given, is perverse
on its face and suffers arbitrariness.

6. Further contention of the counsel for
the petitioner is that the petitioner is
regularly teaching and taking classes,
satisfactorly and he is fit, mentally and
physically. He submits that if the petitioner
gets retired in the mid academic session, the
education of students will adversely suffer
and affect and as the policy makers were
aware about the instant hardship, therefore,
a provision under Chapter III, Regulation 21
under the regulations, was framed. Next
contention is that the provisions of Chapter
III, Regulation 21, have it's perspective and
constructive interpretation which is very
clear that the interest of the students is a
paramount goal of a welfare state and
therefore,
once
a
State
awardee
is
completing his or her age, in between 2nd
April to 30th March, should be given the
benefit of academic session, otherwise, the
interest of the students would hamper.

7. Adding his arguments he has drawn
attention towards the order dated 29th
March 2022 and submitted that the intent of
the order is very clear that the same grants
the benefit of the academic session and nongranting of the benefit of academic session
by the impugned order dated 10th January
2024 is in contravention of the order dated
29th March 2022. Concluding his argument,
he submits that the order dated 10th January
2024 is not only violative of the Government
Order dated 29th March 2022, but that also
goes against the provisions of Chapter IIIrd
of the Regulations, made under the Act,
1921. Thus, the order impugned is
unsustainable.

8. Contrary, the learned counsel
appearing for the opposite parties have
opposed
the
aforesaid
contentions
vehemently and submitted that the benefits
of extension of age, till 64 years to the
teachers working in the non-government
aided institution has been provided with
certain
restrictions
and
conditions,
enumerated in the Government Orders dated
6th May 1982, 4th December 1986, 23rd
October 1991, 27th June 1994, 29th June
2004 and 30th September 2013. So far as the
extension of tenure, till the academic session
ending on 31th March 2025 is concerned, is
opposed on the ground that extension in
terms of Regulation 21 does not cover the
further extension of academic session to the
State Awardees. It is added that the
Regulation 21 could be segregated in two
distinct parts; the first part is that the age of
superannuation for the post of Principal,
Headmaster/Teachers to which, it attach the
provisions of session benefit, allowing him
to continue till the end of academic session,
unless a written request is made to the
contrary, two months prior to attaining the
age
of
superannuation.
Secondly,
it
contemplates extension in service in
addition to the first part upon conditions that
are prescribed by the State Government, that
session benefits allowing the teachers to
468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
continue till the end of academic session,
allowing the end of academic session under
Regulation 21 is restricted only to the first
part and not to the second part and this
would not apply automatically unlike the
first part and therefore, it is well within the
domain of State Government to provide
extension only up till the end of calander
month, in which the petitioner will attain the
age of superannuation and once an
employee
has
attained
the
age
of
superannuation, he has no right to any
continuance in service or any extension of
his services, unless provided under any law.

9. Further contention is that the order
dated 29th March 2022 is very clear in its
terms as it speaks specifically that the same
shall be counted after completing the age of
superannuation up till 31st March 2022 and
specific, date that is 1st April 2022 is
provided, meaning thereby, that those
teachers who have completed their age of
superannuation after completing the benefit
of academic session, their age of 65 years
will be counted from 1st April 2022, and
therefore, the order dated 10th January 2024
is in consonance with the Government Order
dated 29th March 2022, which can no way
be controverted by the petitioner.

10. In support of their contentions,
they have placed reliance on a judgement
and order in case of Dr. Murli Shyam
Pathak Vs. State of U.P and Ors decided
on 24.05.2019, reported in 2019 7 ADJ 172,
wherein, it has been held that 'in the facts of
the present case also the prtitioner was
granted sessions benefit when he attained
the age of superannuation, specified in
Regulation 2021, in as much as, he would
have retired on 1st April 2015, itself. His
continuation beyond 1st April 2015 was on
account of session benefit which continued
up till 24th June 2015. Extension in age of
up to 65 years, was allowed only till 24th
June 2015 and a second session benefit
would therefore, otherwise would not be
available to him'.

11. Concluding their arguments, they
submit that there is no force in the
contention of the counsel for the petitioner,
and thus, no interference is warranted.

12. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, and after perusal of the
material placed on record, it transpires that
the petitioner has sought relief that he is
entitled for the benefit of academic session
as he is completing the age of 65 years in
between second day of April and 30th March

13. The petitioner has assailed the
notice dated 10th January 2024, issued by
the Manager, Committee of Management,
Bakshi ka Talab, whereby, he has been
shown to be retired on 30th April 2024,
while completing the age of 65 years. From
perusal of the Government Order dated 30th
December 2014, it is evident that such
teachers
who
are
the
awardee
of
National/State Teachers Award would get
the benefit of the retirement till 65 years of
age and it was clarified that this benefit
would also be accorded to those teachers,
who have been granted two years service
extension as per the Government Order
dated 6th May 1982, vide order dated 29th
March 2022. It is provided that the petitioner
including the other teachers of the different
colleges mentioned in the order would get
extension of service up till 65 years of age.

14. The order dated 29th March 2022
is extracted as under:-

"उत्तर प्रदेश शासन
मशक्षा अनुभाग-8
5 All. Krishna Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
469
संख्या-463/15-8-22-2006(1)/2021
लखनऊः मदनांक 29 माचट, 2022
कायाटलय - ज्ञाप

प्रदेश के राज्य पुरस्कार प्राप्त अध्यापकों को शासनादेश
संख्या-1772/15-(14)-30(67)/71,
मदनांक
06.5.1982 यथासंशोमधत शासनादेश मदनांक 04.12.1986,
23.10.1991,
27.06.1994,
30.09.2013,
30.12.2014 एवं मदनाक 30.06.2015 में मनधाटररत व्यवस्था
/ प्रामवधानों एवं शासनादेश मदनांक 30.12.2019 द्वारा मनधाटररत
प्रारूप पर मशक्षा मनदेशक (मा०) उ०प्र० द्वारा उपलब्ध कराये गये
प्रस्तावों का परीक्षण मकया गया तथा मशक्षा मनदेशक (मा०) उ०प्र०
की सस्तुमत एवं अमभलेखीय साक्ष्यों के आधार पर सेवा मवस्तार समममत
द्वारा की गयी संस्तुमत के दृमिगत सम्यक मवद्यारोपरान्त श्री राज्यपाल
शासनादेश मदनांक 30.12.2014 के राज्य अध्यापक पुरस्कार प्राप्त
अशासकीय सहायता प्राप्त माध्यममक मवद्यालयों में कायटरत
मनम्नमलमखत प्रधानाचायों/ मशक्षकों को मदनांक 31.03.2022 को
सत्ांत लाभ समहत अमधवर्टता आयु पूणट करने के पश्चात मदनांक
01.04.2022 से 65 वर्ट की आयु तक के मलए सेवा मवस्तार
प्रदान मकये जाने की सहर्ट स्वीकृमत प्रदान करते हैं:-

नाम/पदनाम

मवद्यालय का नाम

डॉ कंचन प्रभा शुक्ला, प्रधानाचायट जैन इण्टर कालेज, नई
मण्डी, मुजफफ्रनगर।

डॉ० भूदेश्वर पाण्डेय, प्रधानाचायट जगत जीत इण्टर कालेज,
इकौना, श्रावस्ती।

श्री कृष्ण कुमार शुक्ला,

प्रवक्ता बक्शी का
तालाब इण्टर कालेज, लखनऊ।

श्री उमा शकर यादव, प्रवक्ता / तदथट प्रधानाचायट गन्ना मवकास
इण्टर कालेज मुण्डेरवा, बस्ती।

2- उपरोक्त प्रधानाचायों/मशक्षक, मजस मवर्य के मशक्षक हैं
उन्हें संबंमधत मवर्य में वादन करना अमनवायट होगा तथा सेवामवस्तार
की अवमध मे अपने पद पर ही तैनात रहेगे।

(जय शंकर दुबे)

मवशेर् समचव।"

15. From bare reading of the above
order, it is evident that the same is in
consonance with the Government Order
dated 30th December 2014, which does not
provide the benefit of the academic session
to those teachers who have been given the
benefit of service extension till 65 years of
age.

16. The government order dated 30th
December 2014 is quoted hereinunder:-

"f'k{kk 1⁄481⁄2 vuqHkkx %

y[kuÅ% fnukad 30 fnlEcj] 2014

fc"k; %& izns'k ds jk"Vah;@ jkT; v/;kid
iqjLdkj izkIr f'k{kdksa dks lsUVay cksMZ vkQ

lsds.Mah ,twds'ku ds ldqZyj la[;k&22
fnukad 18-02-2014 esa nh xbZ O;oLFkk ds vk/kkj

ij lsok foLrkj dh vof/k esa o`f)A

egksn;]

mi;qZDr
fo"k;d
vkids
i=
la[;k&lk01⁄411⁄2f'k0@3924@2014&15] fnukad 25-8-2014
dk d`i;k lUnHk xzg.k djasA

2& izns'k ds jk"Vah;@ jkT; iqjLdkj ikIr
v/;kidksa dks mudh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ds i'pkr nks o"kZ
dk lsok foLrkj fd;s tkus dh O;oLFkk 'kklukns'k la[;k
&1772@15&1⁄4141⁄2&30
1⁄4671⁄2@17]
fnukad
6&5&1982 }kjk iznku dh xbZ gS ftlls jktdh;
fo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr f'k{kdksa@iz/kkukpk;ksZ dh lsokfuo`fRr
vk;q 62 o"kZ ,oa v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr ek/;fed
fo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr f'k{kdksa@iz/kkukpk;ksZa dh lsokfuo`fRr
vk;q 64 o"kZ gksrh gSA bu nksuksa Js.kh ds f'k{kdksa dks
'kklukns'k fnukad 06 ebZ] 1982] 04 fnlEcj 1986] 23
vDVwcj]1991] 27 twu] 1994] 29 twu] 2004 rFkk 30
flrEcj] 2013 eas of.kZr izfrcU/k ,oa 'krksZ ds lkFk mDr
ykHk iznku fd;k x;k gSA

3& vr% bl laca/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk
funZs'k gqvk gS fd lE;d fopkjksijkUr lsUVay cksMZ vkQ
lsds.Mah ,twds'ku ds ldqZyj la[;k&22 fnukad
18&2&2014 esa dh xbZ O;oLFkk ds dze esa izns'k ds
jktdh; ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa @v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr
ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds jk"Vah; @jkT; v/;kid iqjLdkj
izkIr f'k{kdksa dks mudh mRd`"V lsok] mRre LokLF; ,oa
mRre dk;Z vkpj.k ds vk/kkj ij lacaf/kr f'k{kdksa dh
vf/ko"kZrk vk;q iw.kZ gksus ds i'pkr 65 o"kZ dh vk;q gksus
rd ds fy, lsok foLrkj fn;s tkus dh Lohd`fr Jh
jkT;iky lg"kZ iznku djrs gSA mDr O;oLFkk dk
ykHk ,sls f'k{kdksa dks Hkh fn;k tk;sxk ftUgsa 'kklukns'k
fnukad 6&5&1982 fd izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj nks o"kZ dk
lsok foLrkj iznku fd;k tk pqdk gS ,oa os lEizfr
dk;Zjr gSaA vf/ko"kZrk lsok dk ykHk mijksDr izLrj&2
ij ik=rk fo"k;d 'kklukns'kksa ds izfrcU/kksa ds vUrxZr
gksxkA
470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4& ;g vkns'k foRr foHkkx ds v'kkldh;
la[;k &bZ&11@1499@nl&2014] fnukad 26 fnlEcj
2014 esa izkIr mudh lgefr ls fuxZr fd, tk jgs gSA

Hkonh;]

1⁄4ftrsUnz dqekj1⁄2

izeq[k lfpo""

17. From perusal of the order 29th
March 2022, there is no such provision of
benefit of academic session to the petitioner
and law is very clear on this point started
from the judgement and order in case of
Nazir Ahmad Vs King-Emperor, 1936
SEC OnLine PC 41, rendered by the Privy
Council, wherein, it has been held that
'where a power is given to do a certain thing
in a certain way, the thing must be done in
that way or not at all' and the other methods
of performance are necessarily forbidden.'

18. This court has also considered the
judgement and order rendered in the case of
Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir
Prasad and Others, reported in (1999) 8
SCC 266, wherein, the following principle
is laid down:-

"17.......It is a well-settled salutary
principle that if a statute provides for a thing
to be done in a particular manner, then it has
to be done in that manner and in no other
manner. (See with advantage: Nazir Ahmad
v. King Emperor [(1935-36) 63 lA 372 : AIR
1936 PC 253 (lI)] , Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh
v. State of V.P. [AIR 1954 SC 322 : 1954 SCR
1098] , State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [AIR
1964 SC 358 : (1964) 1 SCWR 57] .) An
election petition under the rules could only
have been presented in the open court up to
16-5-1995 till 4.15 p.m. (working hours of
the Court) in the manner prescribed by Rule
6 (supra) either to the Judge or the Bench as
the case may be to save the period of
limitation. That, however, was not done......"

19. Further, in case of Cherukuri
Mani Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of
Andra Pradesh and Ors, (2015) 13 SCC
722, it has been held by the Apex Court that
'where the law prescribed a thing to be done
in a particular manner, following a particular
procedure, it shall be done in the same
manner following the provisions of law,
without deviating from the prescribed
procedure'.

20. In the order dated 29th March
2022, the futher benefit of the 'academic
session' is not granted for the State
Awardees Teachers, who are given the
extension of service, up till age of 65 years,
and therefore, in absence of any provision
for grant of benefit of academic session, the
same cannot be allowed to the petitioner.

21. In view of the abovesaid
submissions and discussions, the writ
petition lacks merit, hence is dismissed.

22. No order as to cost.

23. Consigned to record.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 470
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 5280 of 2015

Ajay Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pushp Raj Singh, Gaurav Upadhyay, Manish
Misra