# Raghvendra Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 555
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-02
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 62515 of 2017
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raghvendra-prasad-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54257
- **Pages:** 28

## Text

_Characters 0–39,916 of 99,443. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39916 for what follows._

2 All. Raghvendra Prasad Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
555
the Division Bench, has interpreted the aforesaid Rules so as to mean that after submission of the
reply by the delinquent employee or even in the absence of reply by the delinquent employee
to the charge-sheet, it is implicit in the aforesaid Rules, though not expressed, that there is
requirement of holding of an oral inquiry as it is sine qua non for providing reasonable
opportunity to defend and it is part of principles of natural justice under Articles 311 and 14
of the Constitution of India.

25. Admittedly, in the instant case, it is evident from the record as well as and from the inquiry
report itself that after submission of reply to the charge-sheet by the petitioner herein, no date and
time has ever been fixed for any further hearing in the instant case by the Inquiry Officer,
nor any opportunity of oral hearing to the petitioner has ever been granted. In view of the
aforesaid binding precedent in Kaptan Singh (supra), it is an implicit duty of the Inquiry Officer to
afford an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee before concluding the inquiry
proceedings. Since, such opportunity has never been granted in the instant case to the petitioner
herein, thus, the inquiry report without affording such opportunity of hearing to the delinquent
employee to the petitioner cannot be relied upon for termination of service of the petitioner herein.
Thus, the entire proceedings against the petitioner is vitiated. In view thereof, the orders passed by
the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority are not sustainable in law.

26. Therefore, the instant writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the
Disciplinary Authority and order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Appellant Authority are set-aside.
Ordinarily, while setting aside the order of termination order, the matter is required to be remitted
back for concluding the disciplinary proceedings from the stage it was vitiated. However, since the
petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation on 09.01.2018, no fruitful purpose would
be served in remitting back the matter at this stage, hence, this Court refrains from remitting back
the matter to the Disciplinary Authority.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 555
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 62515 of 2017

Raghvendra Prasad Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Jurisdiction of District Magistrate to intervene into the matter relating to Secondary Education Department.
(2) Liability of management to pay exemplary costs for its mala fide in scuttling the career of employee.
(3) Effect of non-communicated adverse entry to the entitlement of selection grade and promotion.
(4) Effect of an illegal termination order to the entitlement of selection grade and promotion.
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(5) Effect of retirement occurred during the course of pendency of writ petition to the entitlement of arrears
of salary and post retiral benefits.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Termination - Assistant Teacher - Termination order passed by the manager
was disapproved by the D.I.O.S. - District Magistrate find no place in the hierarchy of Secondary
Education Department - However, the District Magistrate intervened into the matter by issuing
certain direction - Permissibility.
Held : The District Collector or the District Magistrate is the Head of the Revenue and the Civil Administration
in the district and has nothing to do with the Department of Secondary Education. He has no jurisdiction,
authority or power in matters of the Department of Secondary Education - A direction of the kind, that the
District Magistrate issued, could either be done by an administrative superior, 'in-line' in the hierarchy, sitting
over the DIOS or it could be done by a Judge, exercising judicial powers of the State, may be the ordinary
original civil jurisdiction, that is exercised by a Civil Judge - The law does not invest the District Magistrate
with any kind of general supervisory powers over authorities and functionaries of other Departments of the
Government of the same or a higher rank stationed in the district. [Para 13, 14 and 15]
(B) Service law - Termination - Assistant Teacher - Selection was made by the Board -
However, Committee of Management terminated the appointment leveling the charge of
committing fraud to obtain the same - Termination order was disapproved by the D.I.O.S. -
Validity was challenged by the management - Mala fide of the management in scuttling the
career of employee - Exemplary costs - Liability to pay :
Held : The fact that Mishra was indeed selected by the Commission/Board is beyond cavil as appears upon a
conjoint perusal of all these documents. The notification number is also confirmed upon a perusal of the
original stenciled copy of the notification dated 24.12.2004, bearing No. 491/2004, which has been produced
by the Board. In the said notification, Mishra's name finds place at serial No. 9 and the roll number mentioned
is 020110023. In the face of all these documents, there is no scope for the Management to come up with a
case of fraudulent appointment against Mishra, based upon a non-existent selection by the Board - The order
impugned passed by the DIOS is not only unexceptionable, but the Management's stand is mala fide, which
must invite imposition of exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/-. [Para 24 and 25]
(C) Service law - Assistant Teacher - Adverse entry was made, but was not communicated to the
employee - Effect - Selection grade was denied on the basis of non-communicated adverse entry
- Permissibility :
Held : It is not permissible for an employer to rely on adverse entries for the purpose of denying promotion
or withholding grant of selection grade or visiting the employee with any other adverse civil consequences, if
the relevant adverse entries have not been communicated to the employee concerned - Mishra is entitled to
the grant of selection grade, not w.e.f. 01.07.2019, that is to say, when he completed 10 years of service
from the date of the last adverse entry awarded to him, but w.e.f. 19.01.2015 upon completion of 10 years
service from the date he joined the Management's institution, to wit, on 20.09.2005. [Para 40 and 41]
(D) Service law - Assistant Teacher - Promotion to the post of Lecturer - Termination order was
declared illegal - Employee was retired from services during the course of pendency of writ
petition - Effect - Notional promotion - Post retiral benefits - Entitlement - Non-communicated
adverse entries was relied upon to refuse the promotion - Permissibility :
Held : If Mishra is found entitled to promotion or his case on this score held wrongfully denied by the
respondents, entitling him to a quashing of that part of the impugned order with a direction to re-consider it,
Mishra would also be entitled to notional promotion from the date he is found by this Court to be entitled or
by the Authority to which the matter is remitted, i.e. if his claim is substantiated before the said Authority -
Uncommunicated prejudicial entries cannot be relied upon for the purpose of considering the employee's case
for promotion. Such uncommunicated adverse entries are to be ignored - The impugned order passed by the
Joint Director of Education, declining Mishra's case for promotion, cannot be sustained. [Para 43, 49 and 70]
Further held : Mishra, however, will not be entitled to salary for the promotion post of Lecturer, on
whichever date he is granted the notional promotion because he did not actually work on that post till his
retirement. He would be granted the status of a Lecturer, if found fit by the Selection Committee, as above
directed, and shall be entitled to a suitable revision of his post retiral benefits, including pension, worked out
2 All. Raghvendra Prasad Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
557
on the basis of the Lecturer's grade. Of course, he would be entitled to arrears of pension and other post
retiral benefits on account of the revision, but nothing by way of salary arrears or other in-service benefits.
[Para 71] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Surendra Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine All 1918; Dev Dutt vs. Union of India
and others, (2008) 8 SCC 725; Rukhsana Shaheen Khan vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 18 SCC 640;
Rakesh Bhardwaj vs. State of U.P., 2007 (5) ALJ 39; S.D. Raghunandan Singh vs. State of Karnataka and
others, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 526; State of Haryana and others vs. O.P. Gupta and others, (1996) 7 SCC 533;
V.N. Meenakshi vs. Union of India and others, 1999 SCC (L&S) 669; A.K. Soumini vs. State Bank of
Travancore and another, (2003) 7 SCC 238; Union of India vs. B.M. Jha, (2007) 11 SCC 632; Abhijit Ghosh
Dastidar vs. Union of India and others, (2009) 16 SCC 146 - referred to.

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other
Employees) Act, 1971; Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Regulations 72 and
73 of Chapter III; Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education (Services Selection Boards) Act, 1982 - Section 2(l) and
12; Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 - Rule 14.

List of Keywords
Termination, Selection, Outcome of fraud, Fraudulent appointment, Opportunity, Disapproval, Jurisdiction,
Next higher officer, Hierarchy, Suitable direction, Civil jurisdiction, Mandatory injunction, Supervisory power,
Citizen at large, Independent functionaries, Public faith, Plenipotentiary, Perception, Colour of authority,
Appointment without selection, Coercive action, Adjustment register, Non-existence selection, Promotion,
Exemplary cost, Reasoning, Adverse entry, Service book, Error, Withholding grant of selection grade,
Uncommunicated adverse entry, Emoluments, Infructuous, Notional promotion, fortiori, Direct recruitment,
Quota, Requisite qualification, Sanctioned strength, Genuineness of documents, Seniority list, Retirement, Post
retiral benefit, Arrears of pension.

Case Arising From
Order dated 07.02.2024 of D.I.O.S. disapproving the termination order passed by the Committee of
Management.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Arvind Kumar Singh, Bashisth Narain Pandey.
Advs. for the Respondents : Shachindra Kumar Mishra, Dr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, Roopesh Tiwari, A. K.
Yadav, Vibhanshu Vaibhav.

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J.Munir, J.)

1. By this judgment, we propose to decide Writ-A No.62515 of 2017, Writ-A No.42077 of
2016, Writ-A No.19042 of 2022 and Writ-A No.5197 of 2024, three of these relating to the claim
of Raghvendra Prasad Mishra, an Assistant Teacher with the Sri Shiv Mohar Nath Pandey Kisan
Janta Inter College, Nagar Bazar, Basti, for promotion as a Lecturer in the said institution and the
award of selection grade as an Assistant Teacher from the appropriate date. Of these writ petitions,
Writ-A No.5197 of 2024 has been preferred by the Management of the Sri Shiv Mohar Nath
Pandey Kisan Janta Inter College, Nagar Bazar, Basti (for short, 'the Management'), challenging an
order dated 07.02.2024 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Basti (for short, 'the DIOS'),
virtually disapproving the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 26.01.2024, deciding
to terminate the services of Raghvendra Prasad Mishra on ground that his selection by the Uttar
558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Prayagraj (for short, 'the Board') was never
made and his appointment was the result of fraud.

2. We have heard Writ-A No.62515 of 2017 as the leading case. Nevertheless, we propose to
decide Writ-A No.5197 of 2024, preferred by the Management for a first as the said writ petition
carries facts and a cause of action slightly different from those involved in the other three writ
petitions preferred by Raghvendra Prasad Mishra, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'Mishra' in
respect of all the writ petitions.

3. Writ-A No.5197 of 2024 preferred by the Management was heard together with the three
writ petitions preferred by Mishra for reason that the action of the Management in terminating
Mishra's services, dubbing his selection by the Board as non-existent, was really meant to scuttle
consideration of Mishra's claim for promotion to the post of a Lecturer. As we would presently see,
there was absolutely no basis for the Management to say that Mishra was never selected as a
Lecturer by the Board, and, therefore, his appointment was non est, entitling them to terminate his
services vide resolution dated 26.01.2024 and notified by the Manager vide order dated 29.01.2024.
The Management also want in this petition, after quashing the order of the DIOS dated 07.02.2024,
the issue of a mandamus to the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission (for short,
'the Commission'), the successor of the Board, to approve the order dated 29.01.2024, terminating
Mishra's services.

4. The case of the Management is that an order dated 13.09.2005 was issued by the DIOS that
in accordance with a memo dated 09.08.2005 issued by the Secretary of the Board, Mishra had
been selected as an Assistant Teacher (Trained Graduate) in Hindi and that he be appointed by the
Management as such, in their institution. It is the Management's case that in compliance with the
said statutory direction issued by the DIOS, they issued a letter of appointment dated 16.09.2005 in
Mishra's favour and on 20.09.2005, he joined as an Assistant Teacher. It is the Management's case
that in the year 2017, it came to their knowledge that Mishra was never selected in the selection
examination, held pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2002 and Roll No.020110023 mentioned in
the order dated 13.09.2005 issued by the DIOS was not available in the entire despatch list of
joining letters issued by the Board. The Management say that the despatch list of letters show the
name of a man, called Raghvendra Mishra, but his posting is indicated with an institution, called
the R.R. Inter College, Hardoi. The Management further assert that upon personal verification of
the fact, they found that Raghvendra Mishra is working with the institution, known as R.R. Inter
College, Hardoi and is a man different from Mishra, who was appointed by the Management.

5. It is the Management's case further that they submitted multiple applications under the
Right to Information Act to the Board and their successor Commission, in order to secure
information regarding Mishra's selection against Advertisement No. 01/2002. They were ultimately
furnished with a copy of the adjustment register, where letter No. Patrank-2053-2120/2005 dated
09.08.2005, bears the same number as that mentioned in the order dated 13.09.2005 issued by the
DIOS, directing Mishra's appointment in the Management's institution. It is the Management's case
that in the entire letter No. Patrank-2053-2120/2005 dated 09.08.2005, Roll No. 020110023,
mentioned in the DIOS' order, directing Mishra's appointment, is not available. It is also said that in
the aforesaid list, a man, named Raghvendra Mishra, finds mention, but his posting is with the R.R.
2 All. Raghvendra Prasad Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
559
Inter College, Hardoi. The Management, after receipt of the said information, informed the DIOS,
to take action against Mishra regarding the fraud committed by him, saying that Raghvendra
Mishra, who was selected by the Board, is another man, who sat the selection examination under
Roll No. 090110640 and now serving with another institution. Mishra was never selected, and,
therefore, his appointment was the outcome of fraud. It was non est. No action was taken by the
DIOS in the matter nor inquiry held into the fraud that Mishra committed. The DIOS on a later
representation preferred by the Management dated 16.12.2023, called evidence from the
Management through his letter dated 20.12.2023, fixing 26.12.2023 for hearing. The DIOS heard
parties, but did not look into the relevant material, disclosing Mishra's fraudulent appointment.
Instead, a letter dated 27.12.2023 was issued by the DIOS to pay arrears of selection grade to
Mishra. At the end of it all, when the DIOS did not take action, the Management granted
opportunity to Mishra to show cause in the matter and resolved by the resolution dated 26.01.2024
to terminate his services.

6. A formal order, dispensing with Mishra's services, was issued by the Manager, on the
Management's behalf, on 29.01.2024. The DIOS then called for a report regarding the order dated
29.01.2024 from the Management passed against Mishra. The Management answered it by their
reply dated 02.02.2024 with a request that the order, terminating Mishra's services, be approved.

7. It is the Management's case that no action was taken by the DIOS in the matter of granting
approval to the order, terminating Mishra's services. The Management, aggrieved by the inaction,
went to the District Magistrate, Basti, with a representation dated 06.02.2024, which is short, very
odd and by no means sweet. The material part of the representation, together with the request made,
reads:

उपरोक्त के सम्िन्ध में अधोहस्ताक्षरी ने न्जला ववद्यालय ननरीक्षक िस्ती को कुल 09 पत्र
िेजकर दिशा-ननिेश/ अनुमनत माांगा। इसके िावजूि उनके द्वारा कोई दिशा-ननिेश या अनुमनत नहीां िी गयी
और दिनाांक 26.12.2023 को सुनवाई की। उसके िाि करीि 43 दिन व्यतीत हो जाने पर िी ननणथय नहीां
भलया।

अधोहस्ताक्षरी ने दिनाांक 29.01.2024 को िी राघवेन्र प्रसाि भमि फजी भशक्षक की सेवा समाप्त
कर िी। ति न्जला ववद्यालय ननरीक्षक िस्ती प्रिन्धतांत्र को िांग करने की धमकी दिये।

महोिय जनपि का सवोच्च अधधकारी होने के कारण उपरोक्त के सम्िन्ध में आप से उधचत
कायथवाही का अनुरोध है।"

8. The Management say that the District Magistrate, Basti directed the DIOS to take a decision
in the matter, in consequence of which the DIOS passed the order impugned dated 07.02.2024,
disapproving the order dated 29.01.2024 passed by the Manager, terminating Mishra's services. It is
the validity of this order dated 07.02.2024 passed by the DIOS, that is impugned in the writ
petition, presently under consideration.
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. In this writ petition, notice was issued to the State, the Commission as well as Mishra, but
no return has been filed.

10. We have heard Mr. Shachindra Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the Management in
support of the present writ petition, Dr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel along with Mr. Roopesh Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos.1,
2, 3 and 4, Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Vibhanshu Vaibhav, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.5, the Secretary of the Commission, and Mr. Arvind Kumar
Singh along with Mr. Bashisth Narain Pandey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mishra. The
record has been perused.

11. Before we proceed to examine the validity of the impugned order and the Management's
claim to allied relief, we consider it appropriate to notice a few things, that relate to matters of
jurisdiction of certain authorities, vis-a-vis each other, in particular the District Magistrate and the
DIOS.

12. The District Inspector of Schools is a district level officer in his own right and the Head of
the Secondary Education Establishment of the State Government in the district. The Department of
Secondary Education is an independent department of the Government with its own hierarchy of
officers. The next in line to the District Inspector of Schools is the Deputy Director of Education
(Secondary), above whom, there is a Regional Joint Director of Education (Secondary). The next
higher officer is the Additional Director of Education (Secondary). The next officer is the Director
of Education (Secondary), who is the Head of the Directorate of Secondary Education in the State.
The next in hierarchy is part of the State Government and he is the Additional Chief Secretary/
Principal Secretary (Secondary Education). The Department is headed by the Minister of
Secondary Education.

13. In this entire hierarchy, the District Collector or the District Magistrate figures nowhere.
The District Collector or the District Magistrate is the Head of the Revenue and the Civil
Administration in the district and has nothing to do with the Department of Secondary Education.
He has no jurisdiction, authority or power in matters of the Department of Secondary Education. It
is, therefore, odd, though not surprising, that the Management faced with inaction upon their
proposal to approve their order terminating Mishra's services, approached the District Magistrate
for a direction to the DIOS to act with dispatch and take a quick decision. What is more odd,
though again not surprising, is that the District Magistrate indeed issued directions, as the
Management say, to the DIOS, who promptly complied and discharged his duties in passing an
order that he was obliged to do under the law in the matter of approval/ disapproval of the
Management's resolution.

14. We are of clear opinion that if the Management were faced with inaction on the District
Magistrate's part, they ought have complained in the matter to the next higher officer in the
hierarchy of Secondary Education Department, that is to say, the Deputy Director of Education or
the Regional Joint Director of Education. The necessary directions could have been issued by these
officials to the DIOS. Failing a suitable direction by higher officials in the Department of
Secondary Education or even without going to them, the Management could always have moved
2 All. Raghvendra Prasad Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
561
this Court for the issue of a mandamus to the DIOS to undertake his duty and take a decision on
their proposal, terminating Mishra's services. A direction of the kind, that the District Magistrate
issued, could either be done by an administrative superior, 'in-line' in the hierarchy, sitting over the
DIOS or it could be done by a Judge, exercising judicial powers of the State, may be the ordinary
original civil jurisdiction, that is exercised by a Civil Judge. A Civil Judge, on the Management's
suit, could have issued a mandatory injunction, commanding the necessary action to be taken by the
DIOS. If for some reason that remedy was advised not to be efficacious, the Management could
always come and invoke our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for the
issue of a mandamus to the DIOS to take a decision in the matter of approval of their proposal to
terminate Mishra's services. The District Magistrate did not have the semblance of a jurisdiction to
direct the DIOS in the matter.

15. Why we say that the Management going to the District Magistrate was odd, has been
indicated by us hereinabove. The reason why we say that this was not surprising is that there are
prevalent notions amongst the citizens at large, both educated and uneducated, that the District
Magistrate is some sort of a 'head' of all authorities, public functionaries and statutory bodies
functioning in the district, in relation to which he functions as the Collector, being head of the civil
administration, responsible for the maintenance of law and order. The law does not invest the
District Magistrate with any kind of general supervisory powers over authorities and functionaries
of other Departments of the Government of the same or a higher rank stationed in the district. Even
if the citizens at large have such mistaken notions about the District Magistrate's authority, it is the
District Magistrate's duty to dispel such notions by declining to interfere in matters related to
functionaries of other departments, not related to his establishment, or remit under the law. If a
statute invests the District Magistrate with any kind of authority in certain matters that would affect
the establishment of other authorities, that, of course, is a different matter, but not otherwise. Here,
that is not at all the case.

16. There is still another aspect of the matter that we must notice. It is just not that the District
Magistrate in this case assumed jurisdiction and issued directions to the DIOS to decide a matter
pending before him, but again, surprisingly, the DIOS promptly complied with the District
Magistrate's directions. This shows that independent functionaries of the district serving
departments, not at all connected to the District Magistrate's establishment, acknowledge the
District Magistrate's authority over them without any legal basis to it. This is a case, where the
DIOS should have firmly told the District Magistrate not to intervene in matters of his department,
but, instead, he submitted to the District Magistrate's command issued without authority.

17. We must notice here that these kind of situations are commonplace and District
Magistrates across the State, virtually act as knights errant, interfering in matters of absolutely
unrelated departments upon representations or memorials presented to them by members of the
public. Because, independent functionaries, who are in no way subject to the District Magistrate's
authority, promptly succumb to all such commands, it re-enforces the public faith that the District
Magistrate is some kind of a plenipotentiary in the district, who holds a magic wand that is a
panacea to redress any grievance that the public may have against any functionary of the State
belonging to whatever establishment, sitting in the district. This perception leads to administrative
and legal aberrations, which have to be eliminated with a firm hand. It is advisable for the District
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Magistrates to tread a safe course and refrain from acting under colour of authority, where they do
not have it under the law. Else, for future instances, this Court may have to think of resorting to
penal measures against incumbents, who cross line and violate the law.

18. Now turning to the issue involved in the writ petition under consideration, what we find
from a reading of the impugned order is that the DIOS, upon inquiries made from the Secretary of
the Board, was intimated through letter No. 1325/ अनघयाचन/ 677-2023/2023-24 dated 30.01.2024
that the records maintained in the office of the Board show that letter No. 2053-2120 dated
09.08.2005 had forwarded an adjusted panel to the DIOS. In the said panel, Mishra, who was
selected in response to Advertisement No. 01/2002 by the Board as a Trained Graduate Teacher
Hindi (Biklang) and recommended for appointment to the Ganga Prasad Mishri Lal Inter College,
Kaudia, Gonda vide notification dated 24.12.2004, had subsequently been recommended for
appointment vide adjustment letter No. मा0भश0च0िो0/2053-2120/2005 dated 09.08.2005 to the
Janta Inter College, Nagar Bazar, Basti. The DIOS, therefore, held that Mishra's case was one of a
genuine selection and appointment made by the Board and the order terminating his services on
ground that he had secured an appointment without selection, fraudulently, cannot be
countenanced. The order of termination was, therefore, disapproved with directions to pay all
outstandings of salary etc. upon pain of coercive action against the Management under the Uttar
Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other
Employees) Act, 1971.

19. The learned Counsel for the parties urged before us their respective cases with the
Management saying that Mishra was never selected by the Board and indeed appointed
fraudulently, whereas the learned Standing Counsel and the Board, both said that Mishra was
genuinely selected and appointed. We, therefore, summoned the original records from the Board
relating to Mishra's appointment and perused the same.

20. The foremost document that has been perused is a covering letter, bearing No.
मा0भश0च0िो0/ 9588-9603/ 2002 from the Secretary of the Board to the District Inspectors of
School, Gonda and Balrampur dated 25.01.2005, enclosing therewith a panel in duplicate of
selected candidates in the subject of Hindi under the relevant rules, with a direction to ensure that
the selected candidates are placed in the appropriate college. Along with this memo, there are other
memoranda addressed to other unrelated District Inspector of Schools, not concerned with Mishra.
There is then a notification carrying the panel enclosed with the memo dated 25.01.2005. The
notification issued by the Board is dated 24.12.2004 and bears No.491/2004. This notification
clearly mentions that the notified selection of teachers, whose names are mentioned there, relates to
Advertisement No. 01/2002 issued by the Board. It carries a total number of 12 names of teachers
selected for different districts. At serial No.9 of this notification, Mishra's name is mentioned in the
following terms:

"9. Ganga Prasad Mishri Lal Inter College, Kaudia, Gonda

0202110023 Shri Raghvendra Prasad Mishra,

Gram-Agai Pad, Post Pipra Gautam, Basti."
2 All. Raghvendra Prasad Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
563

21. The second document that we have perused is a list of LT Grade Teachers-Select, drawn
up by the Board in its meeting dated 02.08.2005, where the concerned selectees have been adjusted
against institutions other than the ones they were first placed against for appointment. The list
carries eight columns. The first carries the serial number, the second the subject, the third the roll
number, the fourth the name and address of the teacher-select, the fifth the caste, the sixth the
notification number and date, the seventh the name of the institution initially allotted, and the
eighth, the adjusted/ re-allotted institution. This document has been produced before us by the
learned Counsel for the Board, like the other documents.

22. What appears to be serial No.29 of the list (the precise serial number being removed from
the frame of the stenciled copy), mentions in the second column 'L.T. Hindi', the roll number
mentioned in the third column is 020110023, in the fourth column, Mishra's name is mentioned
with his address. In the column relating to caste, the entry is 'Biklang'. In the sixth column, the
notification number and date shown is 491/04, dated 24.12.2004. In the seventh column, the name
of the institution originally allotted to Mishra is mentioned as 'Ganga Prasad Mishri Lal Inter
College, Kaudia, Gonda. In the eighth column, the adjusted/ re-allocated institution mentioned is
'Janta Inter College, Nagar Bazar, Basti'. There is little dispute that the institution run by the
Management, the full name whereof is Sri Shivmohar Nath Pandey Kisan Janta Inter College,
Nagar Bazar, Basti is the same as Janta Inter College, Nagar Bazar, Basti. No one has disputed
before us that reference in the adjustment list to the re-allocated institution as Janta Inter College,
Nagar Bazar, Basti, is a reference to the Management's institution. Also placed in original before us
is the adjustment register relating to the Board, which again has eight columns. The original
register is certified to be a document containing 189 leaves. Leaves are no doubt 189, two
successive pages being treated as one leaf. The adjustment entries commence from the second page
of the first leaf and end at the first page of the eighth leaf. The adjustment register has eight
columns, wherein the first carries the serial number, the second the teacher's-select roll number, the
third the 'Subject', the fourth the teacher's-select name and address, the fifth his/ her caste, the sixth
the notification number and date, against which the teacher-select had applied, the seventh the
name of the institution that was originally allotted, and the eighth, the re-allocated institution. One
set of serial numbers end at the first page of leaf No.5 and proceed from 1 to 31. At the second page
of leaf No.5, fresh serial numbers commence. Here, at this page of the adjustment register, against
serial No.1, the roll number mentioned is 020110023, the subject is Hindi, the teacher's-select name
is that of Mishra, the notification number mentioned is 491/2004 and the date of the notification is
24.12.2004. The institution originally allotted to Mishra is Ganga Prasad Mishri Lal Inter College,
Kaudia, Gonda and the re-allotted institution, shown in the last column, is Janta Inter College,
Nagar Bazar, Basti.

23. The assertions in paragraph Nos.5 and 8 of Writ-A No.5197 of 2024, based on the
inaccuracy pointed out in Mishra's roll number from a copy of the adjustment register, loose all
significance. A perusal of the adjustment register clearly shows that Mishra's roll number is
020110023 and the notification number is 491/2004 dated 24.12.2004. The adjustment register also
shows that Mishra was originally allotted the Ganga Prasad Mishri Lal Inter College, Kaudia,
Gonda and then re-allocated to the Janta Inter College, Nagar Bazar, Basti, that is to say, the
Management's institution.
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. The fact that Mishra was indeed selected by the Commission/Board is beyond cavil as
appears upon a conjoint perusal of all these documents. The notification number is also confirmed
upon a perusal of the original stenciled copy of the notification dated 24.12.2004, bearing
No.491/2004, which has been produced by the Board. In the said notification, Mishra's name finds
place at serial No.9 and the roll number mentioned is 020110023. In the face of all these
documents, there is no scope for the Management to come up with a case of fraudulent appointment
against Mishra, based upon a non-existent selection by the Board. In fact, the Management's case,
which has led them to pass the resolution dated 26.01.2024 and the consequential order dated
29.01.2024, terminating Mishra's services is clearly mala fide. It is based on no evidence.

25. We are of opinion that it has been made deliberately in order to scuttle Mishra's career and
send him on a diversion to redeem his employment and service, when he would otherwise be
agitating his claim for promotion, that has been denied. We, therefore, hold that the order impugned
passed by the DIOS is not only unexceptionable, but the Management's stand is mala fide, which
must invite imposition of exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/-.

26. We may now turn attention to the remainder of the three writ petitions, all preferred by
Mishra.

27. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh along with Mr. Bashisth Narain Pandey, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of Mishra, Mr. Shachindra Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the
Management and Dr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel along
with Mr. Roopesh Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State-respondents, in three of
the remaining writ petitions.

28. Writ-A No.42077 of 2016 seeks the issue of a mandamus to the DIOS to decide Mishra's
representation dated 11.01.2016. The representation is about Mishra's claim to be granted his
selection grade, which, according to him, fell due on 20.09.2015. The DIOS has not filed a counter
affidavit in response to the present writ petition. However, a counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the Management, saying many things, resisting Mishra's claim, but what is relevant is the
plea set out in paragraph No.31 of their counter affidavit. It is said there that Mishra's claim
regarding grant of the selection grade has been decided by the DIOS vide order dated 25.07.2023,
where selection grade has been ordered to be provided to Mishra w.e.f. 01.07.2019.

29. It is also averred that the order dated 25.07.2023 has never been challenged by Mishra. A
perusal of the order dated 25.07.2023 shows that Mishra has been granted the selection grade
indeed w.e.f. 01.07.2019. The reasoning in the order apparently discernible is that Mishra was
appointed as an Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 02.09.2005, and indeed, completed his qualifying service
of 10 years on 19.09.2015, entitling him to selection grade, but it was recommended for him by the
Management vide their resolution dated 05.05.2023, because the last adverse entry awarded to him
was one dated 30.06.2009 and the period of 10 years would have to be reckoned from the date of
the said entry. It is in this manner that the DIOS vide order dated 25.07.2023 decided to grant
selection grade w.e.f. 01.07.2019.
2 All. Raghvendra Prasad Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
565

30. No doubt, it is true that Mishra has not challenged the order dated 25.07.2023, but in the
other two writ petitions, to which we would soon allude in this judgment, he has questioned the
validity of the adverse entries awarded to him. Therefore, if the adverse entries awarded to Mishra,
the last being admittedly the one dated 30.06.2009, were to be held ineffectual by this Court, while
deciding the remainder of the two writ petitions, we would think that consequences that would
follow would obviate the necessity for any order to be made in the present writ petition.

31. In Writ-A No.62515 of 2017, Mishra has sought quashing of the order dated 12.10.2017
passed by the Joint Director of Education, Basti Region, Basti, declining Mishra's claim to the grant
of selection grade as an Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade as well as promotion to the post of Lecturer
(Sanskrit). Here, Mishra has further sought our mandamus directing each of the respondents to
promote Mishra to the post of a Lecturer in Sanskrit with the institution maintained by the
Management.

32. Writ-A No.19042 of 2022 has been instituted by Mishra, seeking to quash the order dated
30.08.2022 passed by the Joint Director of Education, promoting respondent No.5 to the post of a
Lecturer in Economics with the institution maintained by the Management. Mishra has further
prayed for the issue of a mandamus to the respondents to promote Mishra to the post of Lecturer in
Sanskrit with the institution, apparently against the 50% quota reserved for promotion.

33. In the logical sequence of things, it would be apposite to take up Writ-A No.62515 of 2017
at this stage as it is this petition and Writ-A No.19042 of 2022, that now encapsule all of Mishra's
claims to be determined by this Court.

34. In Writ-A No.62515 of 2017, we may notice that a counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the DIOS, to which there is no rejoinder. There is a supplementary counter affidavit on
behalf of the DIOS, which has been answered in terms of a supplementary rejoinder by Mishra.
There is a separate counter affidavit on behalf of the Management answering Mishra's writ petition.
Mishra has filed a rejoinder in answer to the Management's case.

35. Now, there are two facets to Mishra's claim in this petition, to wit, the grant of selection
grade from the date of his entitlement as an Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade, and, the other is
consideration of his case for promotion to the post of a Lecturer in Sanskrit. The impugned order
denies both the claims. This we have already noticed while referring to Mishra's claim involved in
Writ-A No.42077 of 2016 that Mishra has indeed been granted a selection grade w.e.f. 01.07.2019
vide order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the DIOS. This order proceeds on the basis that Mishra was
awarded his last adverse entry on 30.06.2009 and 10 years of satisfactory service were completed
on 01.07.2019, when he was granted the selection grade. Mishra has claimed it w.e.f.