# Sunil Kumar Yadav & Ors v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 551
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-04
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-kumar-yadav-ors-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-53164
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 - Writ - Maintainability -
Supreme
Court
already
settled
the
controversy in Shiv Kumar Pathak's case
upholding the view that qualifications
prescribed by the NCTE are binding,
requirement of weightage to TET marks is
not a mandatory requirement - However,
again writ petition filed - Permissibility -
Held, prayer of the petitioners being
contrary to the observations and direction
passed by Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar
Pathak's case, are therefore, rejected.
(Para 3 and 9)

B. Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 -
Chapter XXII, R. 9 - Costs - Luxury
litigations wasting crucial time of the
Court - How far imposition of costs is
necessary - Held, these litigations appear
to be luxury litigations since issues raised
in present bunch of writ petitions have
already been settled by Supreme Court in
Shiv Kumar Pathak and petitioners (6402
in numbers) in all writ petitions were also
conscious of these facts, and decision of
Shiv Kumar Pathak's case still they have
filed present writ petitions, therefore, all
Writ petitioners shall pay Rs. 100/- each
as cost since these litigations has wasted
crucial time of this Court. (Para 12)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:-

St. of U.P. & ors. Vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak & ors.;
2018 (12) SCC 595

## Text

4 All. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
551
that the disciplinary proceedings
against an employee shall be conducted by
the officer referred to in clause (iv) below
with due observance of the principles of
natural justice. Regulation 85(i)(c) of the
Regulations, 1975 further provides that if
no explanation in respect of charge-sheet is
received or the explanation submitted is
unsatisfactory, the competent authority may
award
him
appropriate
punishment
considered necessary. Thus, the procedure
as provided in Regulation 85(i)(c) will
certainly be followed with Regulation 85(i)
of the Regulations, 1975, wherein it
stipulated that due observance of the
principles of natural justice shall be
followed while conducting the disciplinary
proceedings
against
an
employee.
Admittedly, in the present case, the enquiry
officer did not call upon the witnesses to
prove the documents and at one place, he
has mentioned that photocopy of the
documents are available with him. Thus,
the enquiry report cannot be made the basis
for punishment because the enquiry officer
did not follow the principles of natural
justice by adducing evidence on record as
per Regulation 85(i) of the Regulations,
1975.

27. After recording the findings on
the basis of facts and law, the impugned
punishment order cannot be sustained in
the eyes of law as there is complete
departure of procedure prescribed under
Regulations 85(i) and 85(i)(c) of the
Regulations, 1975 by the enquiry officer
while conducting the enquiry proceedings,
therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
Apart from it, in view of law as discussed
above in the case of Dev Prakash Tiwari
(supra) and Bhagirathi Jena (supra), the
fresh
proceedings
to
initiate
the
departmental
proceedings
cannot
be
allowed for the reason that petitioner had
attained the age of superannuation in the
year 2013 and at this juncture he is 72 years
old.

28. Writ petition is accordingly
allowed and a Writ in the nature of
Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned
punishment order dated 10.01.2005 passed
by opposite party no.2, contained in
Annexure No.8 to the writ petition. The
petitioner is entitled for 30% back wages
and retiral benefits as permissible in law.

29. Since the petitioner has been
litigating from 2005 and has retired in
2013, it would be expedient in the interest
of justice to direct the opposite parties to
complete the exercise for payment of 30%
back wages and retiral benefits to the
petitioner, positively, within a period of
three months from the date a certified copy
of this order is produced before the
authority concerned.

----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 551
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 10478 of 2022 connected with
other cases

Sunil Kumar Yadav & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Rameshwar Prasad Mishra, Sri Abdulla
Kalam, Sri Ashok Khare (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 - Writ - Maintainability -
Supreme
Court
already
settled
the
controversy in Shiv Kumar Pathak's case
upholding the view that qualifications
prescribed by the NCTE are binding,
requirement of weightage to TET marks is
not a mandatory requirement - However,
again writ petition filed - Permissibility -
Held, prayer of the petitioners being
contrary to the observations and direction
passed by Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar
Pathak's case, are therefore, rejected.
(Para 3 and 9)

B. Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 -
Chapter XXII, R. 9 - Costs - Luxury
litigations wasting crucial time of the
Court - How far imposition of costs is
necessary - Held, these litigations appear
to be luxury litigations since issues raised
in present bunch of writ petitions have
already been settled by Supreme Court in
Shiv Kumar Pathak and petitioners (6402
in numbers) in all writ petitions were also
conscious of these facts, and decision of
Shiv Kumar Pathak's case still they have
filed present writ petitions, therefore, all
Writ petitioners shall pay Rs. 100/- each
as cost since these litigations has wasted
crucial time of this Court. (Para 12)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:-

St. of U.P. & ors. Vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak & ors.;
2018 (12) SCC 595

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abdulla
Kalam, Sri Rameshwar Prasad Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioners in the
leading Writ Petition No.10478 of 2022,
Sri R.K.Ojha, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri Abdulla Kalam and Sri
Jamil Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for
the petitioners in Writ Petition No.4933 of
2024
and
other
learned
counsel
in
connected writ petitions, Sri Abhishek
Srivastava, learned Chief Standing Counsel
assisted by Sri Ashish K.Nagwanshi,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
and Ms. Shruti Malviya, (Brief Holder) for
State.

2. This bunch of writ petitions is
filed by the petitioners that they have
passed Teachers Eligibility Test (Primary
Level) Examination-2011 and their results
were published on 25.11.2011, 30.11.2011
and 29.1.2015.

3. The issue as to whether marks
obtained in TET Examination could be a
sole criteria for filling up vacancies, was
finally decided by Supreme Court in State
of U.P. & Ors, ETC, ETC Vs. Shiv Kumar
Pathak & Ors, ETC, ETC, 2018 (12) SCC
595 and its conclusions and directions
given in its paragraphs 16,17,18,19 and 20
are reproduced hereinafter:

 " 16. There is no manner of doubt
that the NCTE, acting as an 'academic
authority' under Section 23 of the RTE Act,
under the Notification dated 31st March,
2010 issued by the Central Government as
well as under Section 12 and 12A of the
NCTE Act, was competent to issue
Notifications dated 23rd August, 2010 and
11th February, 2011 The State Government
was under obligation to act as per the said
notifications and not to give effect to any
contrary rule. However, since NCTE itself
has taken the stand that notification dated
11th February, 2011 with regard to the
weightage to be given to the marks
obtained in TET is not mandatory which is
also a possible interpretation, the view of
4 All. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
553
the High Court in quashing the 15th
Amendment to the 1981 Rules has to be
interfered with Accordingly, while we
uphold
the
view
that
qualifications
prescribed by the NCTE are binding,
requirement of weightage to TET marks is
not a mandatory requirement.

 17. As a result of above, in
normal course the State would have been
at liberty to proceed with the selection in
terms
of
advertisement
dated
7th
December, 2012 in accordance with the
amended rules by way of 15th amendment,
in view of developments which have taken
place during pendency of these appeals,
the said advertisement cannot proceed and
while upholding the said advertisement,
relief has to be moulded in the light of
developments that have taken place in the
interregnum.

 18. Vide interim order dated 25th
March, 2014 this Court directed the State
of Uttar Pradesh to fill up the vacancies of
Assistant
Teachers
in
terms
of
the
impugned judgment. Thereafter, on 17th
December, 2014, the said order was
modified and the State was directed to
appoint candidates whose names were not
involved in malpractices in the TET test
and who had obtained 70% marks (65% for
SC, ST. OBC and physically handicapped
or any other category covered by the
Government policy for reservation). 54,464
posts have already been filled up in
compliance of the orders of this Court. The
said appointments were subject to result of
these matters. It was also observed that if
anyone
without
TET qualification
is
appointed his services will be terminated.
Vide order dated 2nd November, 2015 it
was noted that against 72,825 posts which
were advertised, 43,077 candidates had
completed training and were working while
15,058
candidates
were
undergoing
training Around 14,690 posts were vacant.
It was further observed that candidates
who had the required percentage of marks
in terms of order dated 27th July, 2015
were to file their applications and a
Committee constituted for the said purpose
could verify such percentage and if parity
was found the same benefit could be
extended.

 19. We have been informed that
66,655
teachers
have
already
been
appointed in pursuance of the interim
orders of this Court. Having regard to the
entirety of circumstances, we are not
inclined to disturb the same. We make it
clear that the State is at liberty to fill up the
remaining vacancies in accordance with
law after issuing a fresh advertisement.

 20.
The
matters
will
stand
disposed of in above terms."

4.
Learned
Senior
Counsel
appearing on behalf of petitioners has
submitted various arguments in support of
above prayers, though he has effectively
pressed only prayer no.4 in WRIT-A No.-
10478 of 2022, which is being reproduced
hereinafter:

 "iv. Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents/State Government that the
selection process may be started in
accordance with the Advertisement dated
07.12.2012 issued by the Department of
Basic
Education,
State
Government
(Annexure No. 21) "

5. In present writ petition it was
further prayed that results declared on
25.11.2011, 30.11.2011 and 29.1.2015 of
Teachers Eligibility Test (Primary Level)-
554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Examination-2011 be quashed and to reevaluate the OMR Sheets of Teachers
Eligibility
Test
(Primary
Level)-
Examination-2011 as well as to cancel the
candidature of candidates who have used
whitener on OMR sheets and that selection
process be commenced in pursuance of
advertisement dated 7.12.2012 i.e. the
subsequent advertisement.

6. Learned Senior Counsel further
argued that judgment passed by Supreme
Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak (supra) does
not put a bar that selection process could
not
be
commence
in
pursuance
of
subsequent advertisement dated 7.12.2012.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for
the respondents by referring operative part
of Shiv Kumar Pathak (supra) submitted
that no relief could be granted to the
petitioners beyond the directions given by
Supreme Court as well as this Court is
also bound by said directions.

8. In order to appreciate rival
submissions, I have perused the above
referred operative part of judgment
passed in Shiv Kumar Pathak (supra) as
well as the directions given therein.

9. In paragraph no.17 of Shiv
Kumar Pathak (supra), the Supreme Court
has taken note that in normal course the
State would have been at liberty to
proceed with the selection in terms of
advertisement dated 7th December, 2012
in accordance with the amended rules.
However, in pursuance of an interim
order passed by Supreme Court, 66, 655
teachers have already been appointed
and, therefore, instead of giving a
direction to continue with the selection
process in terms of advertisement dated
7.12.2012, Supreme Court in paragraph
19 of Shiv Kumar Pathak (supra) has
granted liberty to State to fill up the
remaining vacancies in accordance with
law after issuing a fresh advertisement,
therefore, effectively the Supreme Court
has passed a direction that selection in
terms of advertisement dated 7.12.2012
shall not proceed further. Accordingly,
prayer of the petitioners being contrary to
the observations and direction passed by
Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak
(supra), are therefore, rejected.

10. So far as other prayers are
concerned, it is also settled by Supreme
Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak (supra)
against them and now, it could not be
reopened since appointments made in
pursuance of earlier selection process has
also been protected, therefore, other
prayers are also rejected.

11. All Writ Petitions being no
force are accordingly dismissed.

12. In present circumstances,
Court is constraint to observe that these
litigations appear to be luxury litigations
since issues raised in present bunch of
writ petitions have already been settled
by Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak
(supra) and petitioners (6402 in numbers)
in all writ petitions were also conscious
of these facts, and decision of Shiv
Kumar Pathak (supra) still they have filed
present writ petitions, therefore, all Writ
petitioners shall pay Rs.100/- each as cost
since these litigations has wasted crucial
time of this Court.

13. The deponent of affidavit
accompanied with each Writ Petition shall
be responsible that cost be paid by each
petitioners
since
they
have
declared
4 All. Sita Ram Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
555
themselves
being
pairokar
of
respective writ petitioners.

14. The cost shall be paid within a
week before High Court Bar Association,
Allahabad and compliance affidavit shall
be filed which will be kept in records of
this writ petitions. In case of default,
Registrar General of this Court is directed
to take appropriate steps for recovery from
deponent/pairokar of each Writ Petitions.

15.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners in each Writ Petitions will
inform
about
this
order
to
deponent/pairokar.

----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 555
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ - A No. 10689 of 2024
Connected With
Writ - A No. 19731 of 2024
Connected With
Writ - A No. 19646 of 2024
Connected With
Writ - A No. 20429 of 2024
Connected With
Writ - A No. 18826 of 2024
Connected With
Writ - A No. 2701 of 2025

Sita Ram Sharma & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Aditya Prakash Verma, Shailesh Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Service Law-Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Re-employment-Selection for
constable(GD)
U.P.
Police
2018Petitioners denied pay protection under
Government
Order
dated
23.12.2020
while similarly situated candidates in
earlier training batch were granted the
benefit -Petitioners who were ex-army
personnel
selected
under
the
same
recruitment
advertisement
for
constable(GD) U.P. Police 2018, form a
homogeneous class with others who were
appointed earlier-Denial of pay protection
solely based on administrative delay in
training and appointment caused by the
pandemic
violates
Article
14
of
the
constitution-Government
order
being
prospective
cannot
be
applied
to
candidates selected prior to its issuanceHeld, entire selection process formed a
homogeneous group-Division into batches
due to administrative decisions(COVID19) cannot justify differential treatmentGovernment order prospective in naturePetitioners entitled to same benefits as
first batch-Directions issued to extend pay
protection within 30 days.(Para 1 to 16)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. UOI Vs Anil Prasad (2022) 5 SCC 461

2. Manilal Vs The St. of Raj. & ors.(2024) 0 SC
764

3. Firangi Prasadh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.(2011) 2
UPLBEC 987

4. Mahesh Naryan & ors.Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.(Writ A No. 55606 of 2008)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel.

2. By means of above writ petitions
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,