# Smt. Durgesh Sharma & Ors v. State of U.P.& Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 431
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-04
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 713 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-durgesh-sharma-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52998
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Service Law-salary-On basis of a complaint
made by a complainant - an enquiry was
initiated despite earlier complaint by the same
person was rejected-impugned order- salary
stopped -stating that petitioner's appointment
was subject to the Writ which was dismissed as
withdrawn and interim order was vacated -
therefore, order of approval itself becomes
inoperative and their salary got stopped -writappointment of petitioners were approved by
the DIOS during pendency of the writ petitionon basis of consideration by Finance Section -
said approval order not challenged-acted upon
by granting promotion-impugned order set
aside.

W.P. disposed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

Ashok Kumar Dwivedi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2025:AHC:6788

## Text

2 All. Smt. Durgesh Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
431
does not cause any prejudice to any
candidate and it does not vitiate the
selection process.

40. Therefore, we find ourselves
unable to agree with the view taken by the
Hon'ble Single Judge that the aforesaid
resolutions vitiate the selection process.

41.
In
view
of
the
foregoing
discussions, the intra Court appeal is
hereby allowed. The impugned judgment
and order dated 08.01.2025 is upheld to the
extent that it holds that the persons
possessing Bachelor Degree in engineering
are not eligible for being appointed to the
posts in question. However, that part of the
judgment of the Writ Court by which the
entire selection process has been set aside
and the authorities have been directed to
finalize the eligibility conditions and
amend the service rules, in case they so
desire, is not sustainable in law in view of
the discussion made above and the same is
hereby set aside. Costs made easy.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 431
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ-A No. 713 of 2025

Smt. Durgesh Sharma & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Abhishek Bhushan, Sri Himanshu Singh,
Sri Anil Bhushan (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Service Law-salary-On basis of a complaint
made by a complainant - an enquiry was
initiated despite earlier complaint by the same
person was rejected-impugned order- salary
stopped -stating that petitioner's appointment
was subject to the Writ which was dismissed as
withdrawn and interim order was vacated -
therefore, order of approval itself becomes
inoperative and their salary got stopped -writappointment of petitioners were approved by
the DIOS during pendency of the writ petitionon basis of consideration by Finance Section -
said approval order not challenged-acted upon
by granting promotion-impugned order set
aside.

W.P. disposed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

Ashok Kumar Dwivedi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2025:AHC:6788
(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. The petitioners have set up a case
that respondent, a minority institution, has
issued an advertisement to fill up three
substantive vacancies for the post of
Assistant
Teachers
LT
grade.
The
petitioners have applied for the said post
and were duly appointed and in pursuance
of their respective appointment letters, they
joined service on 1st August 1998. Further
case is that Committee of Management of
concerned institution have submitted the
documents to concerned DIOS for approval
on 7th August 1998.

2. It is further case of the
petitioners that when concerned DIOS has
not passed any specific order in terms of
the relevant provisions, their approval was
deemed to be approved and when their
salaries were not paid, they constrained to
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
approach this Court by way of filing Writ
Petition No. 9230/1999 seeking following
reliefs :-

"(i) issue a writ of mandamus,
order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing respondents to treat
the petitioners' selection dated 19.07.1998
as deemed approved and pay salary to the
petitioners with effect from 08.09.1998
(petitioner no. 1 and 3) and with effect
from 14.09.1998 (petitioner no. 2) regularly
month to month including arrears of salary;

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus,
order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the District Inspector
of Schools to consider and approve the
selection of the petitioners as Assistant
Teachers L.T. Grade in Anglo Bangali
Girls Inter College, Agra which selections
have been submitted by the Management to
the District Inspector of Schools, Agra vide
letters dated 07.08.1998 and pay salary to
the petitioners accordingly;

(iii) issue such other and further
writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fitr and proper in the
circumstances of the case.

(iv) award costs of the writ
petition to the petitioners."

3. This Court in above referred writ
petition passed an interim order on 12th
March 1999 that :-

'Until further order of this Court
the respondents directed to make payment
of salary of this L.T. Grade teachers then to
duly approved, assistant teachers L.T.
Grade in Anglo Bengali Girls Inter
College, Agra.'.

4. Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior
Advocate
assisted
by
Sri
Abhishek
Bhushan, Advocate for petitioners has
submitted that during pendency of said
case, firstly appointment of petitioners
were approved by the DIOS by an order
dated 18th May 1999 and thereafter they
were declared parmanent by separate orders
dated 19th May 2000, and, thereafter they
were promoted also.

5. Learned Senior Advocate has
further
submitted
that
in
above
circumstances, since grievance of the
petitioners were considered that approval
was granted and they were also confirmed,
without any legal impediment, therefore,
they filed an application for withdrawal of
their case and accordingly by an order
dated 30th July 2003, above referred writ
petition was dismissed as withdrawn. For
reference, said order is mentioned below :-

"Counsel for the petitioner stated
that the petition be dismissed as withdrawn.

The petition is dismissed as
withdrawn.

Stay Order if any stands vacated."

6. Learned Senior Advocate has
further submitted that thereafter, petitioners
served peacefully and got regular salaries
and were promoted also in terms of
relevant provisions. However in the year
2023 i.e. after 2 decades, one Bhupendra
Singh has filed a complaint in regard to
appointment of one of the petitioners on
which cognizance was taken, however it
was
rejected
vide
order dated
21st
November 2023 that such complaint was
baseless. It was also noted that earlier
attempt of same complainant was remained
unsuccessful.

7. Learned Senior Advocate has
argued that despite complaint of such
person was rejected, still again on basis of
same complaint, an enquiry was set up at
2 All. Smt. Durgesh Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
433
the level of Joint Director of Education by
a communication dated 15th April 2023
addressed to DIOS concerned against all
petitioners. During proceedings, notice
were issued and petitioners submitted their
respective replies and ultimately concerned
DIOS by an order dated 31st December
2024 passed an order whereby salary of
petitioners were stopped on the ground that
approval of petitioner's appointment was
subject to outcome of above referred
petition which was dismissed as withdrawn
and since interim order was vacated by an
order dated 30th July 2003, therefore, order
of approval itself becomes inoperative and
their salary was got stopped. Relevant part
thereof is mentioned below :-

 "यनर्थय

माननीय
उच्च
न्यायालय
में
योजजत याधचिा सिंख्या 9230/1999 श्रीमती
सरोज अग्रवाल और अन्य बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश
राज्य और चार अन्य में पाररत आदेश
ददनािंि 12.03.1999 और ददनािंि 30.07.2003
िा अनुपालन वविार् से िराये जाने हेतु श्री
िूपेन्र ससिंह यनवासी ग्राम सूरोठी अछनेरा
आर्रा द्वारा िी र्यी सशिायत ददनािंि
12.04.2023/01.08.2024 िे सम्बन्ध में जजला
ववद्यालय यनर क्षि आर्रा िे िायाथलय पत्र
ददनािंि 07.08.2024 व 13.08.2024 िे
अनुसरर् में याधचिािताथओिं द्वारा अपना-
अपना उत्तर ददनािंि 17.08.2024 िो प्रस्तुत
किया र्या जजसमें ररर् याधचिा सिंख्या
9230/1999 िो वावपस लेने िा िोई ववशेि
िारर् नह िं बताया र्या है। बजल्ि िहा र्या
है कि सशिायतिताथ सशक्षिों िो परेशान
िरने एविं व उनसे धन वसूलने िे सलए झूठे
आरोप लर्ा रहा है। न ह याधचिािताथओिं ने
अपने उत्तर में यह खुलासा किया र्या है कि
ररर् खाररज होने िा तथ्य उनिे द्वारा
वविार् िो क्यों नह िं बताया र्या क्योंकि
याधचिािताथओिं िी यनयुजक्त िी ववत्तीय
स्वीिृयत
तत्िाल न
जजला
ववद्यालय
यनर क्षि-2 आर्रा द्वारा अपने पत्र सिंख्या
मा०/310-11/999-2000 ददनािंि 18.05.1999 िे
द्वारा माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में योजजत
याधचिा
सिंख्या
9230/1999
में
पाररत
अजन्तररम आदेश ददनािंि 12.03.1999 िे
अनुपालन में द र्यी र्ी, जजसे माननीय
उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद द्वारा ददनािंि
30.07.2003 िे आदेश द्वारा वावपस ले सलया
र्या है। जजससे ददनािंि 12.03.1999 िा
अजन्तररम आदेश यनरस्त हो र्या है। जजससे
जजला ववद्यालय यनर क्षि-2 आर्रा द्वारा
अपने
पत्र
सिंख्या
मा०/310-11/99-2000
ददनािंि 18.05.1999 िे द्वारा किया र्या
ववत्तीय अनुमोदन यनरर्थि हो र्या र्ा
सम्बजन्धत सशक्षक्षिाओिं द्वारा तथ्य र्ोपन
िर वविार् में िायथ िरते रहे एविं अद्यतन
वविार् से वेतन प्राप्त िरते रहे, जो कि
सशक्षर् सिंस्र्ाओिं में ऐसा िृत्य वह िी एि
सशक्षि/िायथवाहि प्रधानाचायथ िे रूप किया
जाना यनदिंनीय है शैक्षखर्ि सिंस्र्ाओिं में
ववद्यार्ी सशक्षा ग्रहर् िरने आते है यदद
सशक्षि द्वारा ऐसा आचरर् अपनाया जाता
है तो ववद्याधर्थयों िो ऐसे सशक्षिों द्वारा द
जाने वाल सशक्षा किस दशा में उनिा
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
िववटय
तय
िरेर्ी।
माननीय
उच्च
न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में योजजत याधचिा
सिंख्या 9230/1999 में पाररत आदेश ददनािंि
12.03.1999 यनम्नवत है

Until further order of this court
the respondent are directed to made
payment of salary of the L.T. Grade
teaching them tobe duly approved assistant
teachers L.T Grade in anglobangali inter
college agra
माननीय
उच्च
न्यायालय
में
योजजत
याधचिा सिंख्या 9230/1999 में पाररत आदेश
ददनािंि 12.03.1999 िे अनुरम में जजला
ववद्यालय यनर क्षि-2 आर्रा द्वारा अपने
पत्र
सिंख्या
310-11/99-2000
ददनािंि
18.05.1999 िे द्वारा उक्त अध्यावपिाओिं
िो अनुमोददत िर वेतन आहररत किया
र्या है। अन्त में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय
इलाहाबाद में योजजत याधचिा सिंख्या
9230/1999 में पाररत अजन्तम आदेश 30.
07.2003 यनम्नवत् है।

counsel for the petitioner states
that
the
petitions
be
dismissed
as
withdrawn .the petition is dismissed as
withdrawn. stay order if any stands
vacated.

उक्त िे रम में मा० उच्च
न्यायालय में योजजत याधचिा सिंख्या
9230/1999 में पाररत अन्तररम आदेश
ददनािंि 12.03.1999 िे द्वारा याधचिािताथ
श्रीमती सरोज अग्रवाल, श्रीमती दुर्ेश समश्रा
(वतथमान नाम •श्रीमतीदुर्ेशशमाथ), श्रीमती
इन्दूबाला िोहल स०अ० ऐिंग्लो बिंर्ाल
र्ल्सथ इण्र्र िालेज रिावर्िंज आर्रा िा
वविार् द्वारा किया र्या स्नाति वेतनरम
में ववत्तीय अनुमोदन ददनािंि 18.05.1999 जो
माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में
योजजत याधचिा सिंख्या 9230/1999 में
पाररत अजन्तम आदेश ददनािंि 30.07.2003
िे द्वारा खाररज हो जाने पर स्वतः ह
यनरर्थि / यनरस्त हो चुिा र्ा, िो यनरर्थि
/ यनरस्त किया जाता है तर्ा सम्बजन्धत
अध्यावपिाओिं िा स्नाति वेतनरम में
वविार् द्वारा ददनािंि 18.05.1999 िो किये
र्ये अनुमोदन िो अमान्य हो जाने िे
फलस्वरूप सम्बजन्धत याधचिािताथ श्रीमती
सरोज अग्रवाल, स०अ० वतथमान पद स०अ०,
श्रीमती दुर्ेश समश्रा, स०अ० वतथमान पद
प्रवक्ता / िायथवाहि प्रधानाचायथ (वतथमान
नाम श्रीमती दुर्ेश शमाथ), श्रीमती इन्दूबाला
िोहल , स०अ० वतथमान पद प्रवक्ता ऐिंग्लो
बिंर्ाल र्ल्सथ इण्र्र िालेज रिाबर्िंज
आर्रा से तत्िाल प्रिाव से ऐिंग्लो बिंर्ाल
र्ल्सथ इण्र्र िालेज आर्रा ववद्यालय में
िाम
सलया
जाना
एविं
उपरोक्त
याधचिािताथओिं द्वारा वविार् से तथ्य
र्ोपन िर जो वेतन प्राप्त किया जा रहा है
पर रोि लर्ाई जाती है।"

8. Learned Senior Advocate has
further submitted that not only petitioners'
service was put on stake on a vague
complaint by one Bhupendra Singh but
wrong interpretation was taken of the order
passed in earlier writ petition filed by
petitioners. He has referred the contents of
the order dated 18th May 1999 whereby
during
pendency
of
writ
petition,
2 All. Smt. Durgesh Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
435
petitioners' services were approved that it
was unconditional and order of withdrawal
of writ petition would have no adverse
effect on such order. For reference, said
order is quoted below :-

"प्रेिि

जजला ववद्यालय यनर क्षि-2,

बासलिा सशक्षा आर्रा।

सेवा में,

प्रबन्धि (अल्पसिंख्यि सस्र्ा)

एग्लो बिंर्ाल िन्या इण्र्र िालेज

आर्रा।

पत्रािंि-मा0-320-21/99-2000
ददनािंि
18.5.1999

वविय- ररर् याधचिा सिं० 9230/99
श्रीमती सरोज अग्रवाल व अन्य बनाम
जजला ववद्यालय यनर क्षि-2 बासलिा सशक्षा
आर्रा एव अन्य में माननीय उच्च
न्यायलय इलाहाबाद िे आदेश ददनािंि
12.3.99 िे अनुपालन में एल०र् ०ग्रेड िी
यनयुजक्तयो िे प्रयत अनुमोदन िे सम्बन्ध
में।

महोदय,

उपयुथक्त
ववियि
आपिे
पत्रािंि-
26/ए०बी०एम०/ यनयुजक्त /98-99 ददनािंि 78-98 िे सिंदिथ में अवर्त िराना है कि ररर्
याधचिा
सिं०
9230/99
श्रीमती
सरोज
अग्रवाल व अन्य, एग्लो बिंर्ाल िन्या
इण्र्र
िालेज
आर्रा
बनाम
जजला
ववद्यालय यनर क्षि-2 बासलिा सशक्षा आर्रा
एव अन्य में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय
इलाहाबाद िे आदेश ददनािंि 12.3.99 िे
समादर में एल०र् ०ग्रेड िी यनयुजक्तयो िो
अनुमोदनार्थ किये जाने िे सम्बन्ध में।
उक्त िे सम्बन्ध मे िहना है कि आपिे
द्वारा श्रीमती सरोज अग्रवाल िु०दुर्ेश
समश्रा तर्ा श्रीमती इन्दुवाला िोहल िे
चयन
िे
फलस्वरूप
यनयुजक्तयो
िा
अनुमोदन
हेतु
प्रस्तुत
असिलेखो
िे
पर क्षर्ोपरान्त ववत्त एव लेखाधधिार (मा०)
िायाथलय जजला ववद्यालय यनर क्षि आर्रा
िे
पत्रािंि
14311/40/99-2000
ददनािंि
17.5.99 द्वारा द र्ई ववत्तीय सहमयत िे
आधार पर तर्ा ररर् याधचिा सिं0 92309 में
यनर्थत आदेश ददनािंि 12.3.99 जजसमें वेतन
िुर्तान िे स्पटर् आदेश है। िे आधार पर
उक्त आदेश ददनािंि 12.3.99 िे समादर में
सिंस्र्ा में स्तानि वेतनिम 45000-7000 में
तीन मौसलि ररक्त पदो पर यनयुजक्तयों इस
पत्र िे यनर्थत यतधर् से अनुमन्य िी जाती
है जो यनम्नवत है :-

र०
सिं

पूवथ पद
धारि
िा नाम

ररक्त
िा
िारर्

प्रस्तावव
त
ररयुजक्त

1

श्रीमती
आर०दु
आ

सिंवा यनवृत्त
दद०30.06.9
8

श्रीमती
सरोज
अग्रवाल

2

श्रीमती
सुिमा
राय

तदैव

िु०दुर्ेश
समश्रा
436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3

श्रीमती
आई०
इिबाल

प्रवक्ता पद
पर
पदोन्नयत
होने से

श्रीमती
इन्दुबाला
िोहर

यदद इसमें िोई र्ोपन किया र्या
पाया र्या तो यनयुजक्त स्वत ह यनटप्रिावी
हो जायेर्ी जजसिा उत्तरदाययत्व आपिा
होर्ा।"

9. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel as well as Sri Ashok Khare,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Kauntey Singh, learned counsel for
respondent-3
have
supported
the
impugned
order
that
on basis
of
material
available,
approval
of
petitioners' appointment were subject to
outcome of writ petition and when said
petition was withdrawn without any
specific order and interim order was
also vacated, therefore, consequential
order of approval becomes inoperative.
Petitioners were guilty to withholding
of such information which came into
light on the basis of complaint and,
therefore, impugned order was passed
which does not require any interference.

10. I have considered the above
submissions and perused the record.

11. This is another case where on basis
of a complaint made by a complainant (in
present case one Bhupendra Singh), an
enquiry
was
initiated
despite
earlier
complaint by the same person was rejected
and an absolutely erroneous interpretation
was taken of the order passed by the Court
while dismissing the writ petition as
withdrawn filed by the petitioners, without
looking into its contents. The complainant
is not a party before this Court.

12. I have carefully perused the order
dated 18th May 1999 which was passed
during pendency of the writ petition filed
by petitioners. Said order was passed on
basis of consideration by Finance Section
on basis of documents available and only
thereafter, their services were approved.
Said order does not indicate that it was
subject to outcome of writ petition filed by
petitioners. Till date, the order dated 18th
May 1999 has not challenged by any of the
parties including the complainant. Order
dated 18th May 1999 was further acted
upon
and
petitioners
were
granted
promotion also. There is no reference in the
impugned order that the petitioners were
not qualified or their selection process was
de-hors of relevant Rules.

13. Only reason assigned in the
impugned order was that the writ petition
was dismissed as withdrawn and interim
order was vacated, however as referred
above, order of approval was based on
documents available and the decision was
taken on the basis of material and not only
on basis of interim order passed by the
Court i.e. for grant of salary.

14. In above circumstances, Court is
of
the
considered
opinion
that
the
impugned order can not survive. It appears
that complainant has a good repo with the
officers in the Education Department that
despite earlier complaint was rejected still
an inquiry was initiated after two decades
and impugned order was passed.

15. This Court in the case of Ashok
Kumar Dwivedi vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2025:AHC:6788 has directed that
in such cases, the complainant should file
2 All. U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Sahu
437
an affidavit that if the allegations are found
to be untrue, a legal action could be taken
against him.
16. In above circumstances, not
only the impugned order is set aside, but it
is directed that Secretary, Secondary
Education, will initiate criminal proceeding
against complainant who has filed bogus
application against the petitioners which
not only led an illegal impugned order but
the
petitioners
were
constrained
to
approach this Court also and details of
complainant are as follows :-

"Bhupendra Singh
Village- Suroti, Tehsil - Acchanera
District- Agra"

17. The DIOS concerned is put on
caution that he is required to pass orders
without any pressure and without giving
any unnecessary interpretation of the orders
passed by the Court without seeking any
clarification, if so warrant.

18. The complainant is not before this
Court,
however,
it
is
directed
that
respondent - 1 will issue notice to him to
seek explanation as to why not a cost of Rs.
1,00,000/- be imposed on him as his
complaint has not only invited impugned
order but has troubled the petitioners who
were peacefully discharging their duties for
last more than two decades.

19. The impugned order is set aside
and its legal consequence will follow and
writ petition stands disposed of with above
observations and directions.

20. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 437
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ-A No.1940 of 2025

U.O.I. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Dharmendra Kumar Sahu ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ajit Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondent:

Voluntary Retirement-Tribunal directed the
petitioners to grant the voluntary retirement to
the Respondent on expiry of statutory period of
90 days -and to pay him all retiral dues-review
rejected-recall rejected-present Writ- Petitioner
sought voluntary retirement on the ground that
he is not keeping good health-previously two
punishment
already
given
owing
to
his
unauthorized
absence
from
duty
-that
punishment does not provided that the periods
of his absence shall not be counted in his
service or that he shall not be paid salary for
those periods-no other adverse consequence
will follow due to the respondent's absence for
the aforesaid period.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi, J.
&
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Shri S. B. Pandey, the
learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
assisted by Shri Ajit Kumar Dwivedi, the
learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri
Amit Verma, the learned Counsel for the
respondent.