# Smt. Meenakshi Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 478 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2024-03-05 - **Case number:** Writ A No. 3436 of 2024 - **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-meenakshi-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51667 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote A. Service Law - Constitution of India - 103rd Constitutional Amendment - UP Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections) Act, 2020 - 10% reservation in favour of EWS - Applicability - Selection process of appointment of 69000 posts of Assistant Teachers was commenced from 16.05.2020 i.e. after 103rd Constitutional Amendment but before enactment of U.P. Act No. 10 of 2020 i.e. on 31.08.2020 - Effect - Held, as per savings clause (Section 13), provisions of U.P. Act No. 10 of 2020 would not be applicable - Since procedure for selection for 69000 posts of Assistant Teachers was commenced prior to 31.08.2020, therefore, St. of U.P. was not legally bound to provide EWS reservation in said recruitment process - It was only after enactment of said Act, the St. is under a legal obligation to provide reservation to EWS and not before it. (Para 18, 23 and 24) Writ petition dismissed. (E-1) List of cases cited :- ## Text 478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Section 2(j) but only for agreement in writing as per Rule 4 (3) and if there is no agreement in writing as per Rule 4(3), such tenant can be evicted only in one condition that is where land lord has submitted details as per first schedule but tenant has failed to discharge his part of obligation vide proviso to Section 4(3) of the new Tenancy Act. However, if land lord also fails and so also the tenant to comply with Section 4(3), no eviction of tenant has been provided for." 13. I have gone through the observation made by the co-ordinate Bench in the decision cited by Ms. Shalini Goel. In the case cited, the issue before the Court were:- "(a). Whether a Small Cause Suit already instituted, since prior to coming into force of the new Tenancy Act, 2021 and so also such SCC revision arising therefrom would stand saved or the SCC suit and SCC Revision being not mentioned in the repeal and saving clause of Section 46, the proceedings of such suit and revision would stand abated; and (b). Whether the bar created under Section 38 of the Tenancy Act is not an absolute one and so Small Cause Suit for arrears of recovery of Rent and Eviction (SCC Suit) and SCC Revision arising therefrom would still be maintainable even after the enforcement of the New Tenancy Act, 2021 qua the of tenancies not covered by tenancy agreements provided for under Tenancy Act, 2021." 14. The issued urged in this petition is as to whether information to the Rent Authority in form specified in the First Schedule by the landlord is a sine qua non for maintaining an application under Section 21 (2) of the Act. The observation made by the co-ordinate Bench reproduced hereinabove does not help the petitioner inasmuch as, it ignores the import of Section 4 (7) of the Act. The import of the Section 4 has been explained in the preceding paras of this order. 15. The present proceedings are at a stage where the preliminary objections of the tenant/petitioner about the maintainability of the proceedings under Section 21 (2) have been rejected and time for filing written statement has been granted by the Rent Authority. A challenge to it before the Rent Tribunal has failed. 16. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. It is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order granted earlier is discharged. 17. No order as to costs. ---------- (2024) 3 ILRA 478 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. Writ A No. 3436 of 2024 Smt. Meenakshi Mishra ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sanjeev Singh, Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Kaushlesh Pratap Singh A. Service Law - UP Government Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - 3 All. Smt. Meenakshi Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 479 Departmental enquiry - Non-compliance of mandatory statutory provisions - On the direction issued by the High Court, the Secretary promptly laid down program to hold online Training Session in respect of conducting departmental enquiry - Error committed in the impugned order was accepted by Additional Advocate General on behalf of the St. - Effect - High Court set aside the impugned order with direction to conclude enquiry in accordance with prescribed procedure. (Para 3, 4 and 5) Writ petition disposed of. (E-1) (Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) 1. This Court has encountered with various instances where the Basic Education Officers while passing orders in departmental inquiry are not following relevant mandatory provisions of relevant Rules and present case is also a glaring example of same. 2. Instead of passing a strict order, this Court has requested Sri Ashok Mehta, Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General and Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for State to take instructions from Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Prayagraj to impart training to all Basic Education Officers so that such act may not be repeated and while passing orders under departmental inquiry, substantial compliance of relevant provisions may be complied with. 3. A prompt action has been taken and an order has been issued today by Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj which is placed on record that an online training will be undertaken on 6th and 7th of this month. The order is reproduced hereinafter -: "प्रेर्क, सवचव, उ०प्र० बेवसक वर्शक्षा पररर्ि, प्रयागराज। सेवा में, वजला बेवसक वर्शक्षा अविकारी, समस्ि जनपि उिर प्रिेर्श। पत्राांक बे०वर्श०प०/43071-151/2023-24 विनाांक 5-3-2024 ववर्य :- माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाि में योवजि यावचका सांख्या 3436/2024 श्रीमिी मीनाक्षी वमश्रा बनाम स्टेट ऑफ यू०पी० व अन्य के में। महोिय, उपयुाक्त ववर्यक प्रकरण का सन्िभा लें जो माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाि में योवजि यावचका सांख्या 3436/2024 श्रीमिी मीनाक्षी वमश्रा बनाम स्टेट ऑफ यू०पी० व अन्य के में है। माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा सुनवायी के समय विये गये वनिेर्श के कम में विनाांक 06.03.2024 एवां 07.03.2024 को सायां 04.00 बजे से 6.00 बजे िक पररर्िीय वर्शक्षक/वर्शक्षणेिर कमाचाररयो के ववरुद्ध अनुर्शासनात्मक कायावाही वकये जाने हेिु उिर प्रिेर्श बेवसक वर्शक्षा पररर्ि कमाचारी वगा वनयमावली 1973 एवां सपवठि उिर प्रिेर्श सरकारी सेवक (अनुर्शासन एवां अपील) वनयमावली 1999 का पालन वकये जाने के सम्बन्ि में प्रवर्शक्षण सत्र विामान में वनवााचन प्रवकया एांव अन्य महत्वपूणा प्रर्शासवनक काया के दृवष्टगि ऑनलाइन आयोवजि वकया जा रहा है। अिः आपको वनिेवर्शि वकया जा रहा है वक प्रवर्शक्षण सत्र में स्वयां प्रविभाग करना सुवनविि करें। ऑनलाइन प्रवर्शक्षण हेिु वलांक आपको अलग से प्रेवर्ि वकया जा रहा है। भविीय (प्रिाप वसांह बघेल) सवचव उ०प्र० बेवसक वर्शक्षा पररर्ि, प्रयागराज।" 4. In aforesaid circumstances, Sri Mehta, learned Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General fairly submits 480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES that impugned order may be set aside and Basic Shiksha Adhikari concerned be directed to proceed from stage of inquiry report i.e. after serving a copy of it upon petitioner. 5. Taking note of prompt response as well as fair submission, impugned order is set aside and concerned B.S.A. is directed to provide a copy of inquiry report to petitioner and to proceed further in accordance with prescribed procedure and to conclude the inquiry expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from today. 6. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. ---------- (2024) 3 ILRA 480 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.02.2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. Writ A No. 4063 of 2020 with other cases Shivam Pandey & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Seemant singh, Sri G.K. Singh (Sr. Advocate) Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Arun Kumar A. Service Law - Constitution of India - 103rd Constitutional Amendment - UP Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections) Act, 2020 - 10% reservation in favour of EWS - Applicability - Selection process of appointment of 69000 posts of Assistant Teachers was commenced from 16.05.2020 i.e. after 103rd Constitutional Amendment but before enactment of U.P. Act No. 10 of 2020 i.e. on 31.08.2020 - Effect - Held, as per savings clause (Section 13), provisions of U.P. Act No. 10 of 2020 would not be applicable - Since procedure for selection for 69000 posts of Assistant Teachers was commenced prior to 31.08.2020, therefore, St. of U.P. was not legally bound to provide EWS reservation in said recruitment process - It was only after enactment of said Act, the St. is under a legal obligation to provide reservation to EWS and not before it. (Para 18, 23 and 24) Writ petition dismissed. (E-1) List of cases cited :- 1. Prashant Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2005 (4) ESC (All) 2395 2. Writ A No. 13156 of 2020; Mahendra Pal & ors.Vs St. of U.P. & ors.decided on 13.03.2023 3. Special Appeal No. 156 of 2019; Raghvendra Pratap Singh & ors.Vs St. of U.P. decided on 06.05.2020 (Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) 1. Issue before this Court for consideration are -: (i) "Whether in pursuance of 103rd Amendment in Constitution of India dated 12.01.2019, whereby provision for 10% reservation to Economically Weaker Sections (for short "EWS") and adopted by State of Uttar Pradesh through Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2019) would be applicable to a Notification dated 16.05.2020 issued by State Government in regard to selection on 69000 posts of Assistant Teachers?"