Prayagraj: Expressing concern over the state of Uttar Pradesh’s basic education department, the Allahabad High Court has observed that allegations of corruption and illegal gratification are frequently brought to its notice.The observation was made by Justice Manju Rani Chauhan while hearing an application seeking withdrawal of a writ petition that had been pending before the court for nearly six years.The petition, filed by Uphar Kushwaha, challenged a 2018 order of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA), Prayagraj. Kushwaha had sought protection against interference in his duties as an assistant teacher at a Junior Basic School and payment of his regular salary.On Aug 20, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the case, stating that his grievance had been resolved. However, the court declined to accept the submission at face value.Justice Chauhan noted that no document or order had been placed on record to explain how the grievance had been settled or whether the impugned order had been withdrawn. The court observed that the matter had been heard on several occasions since July 19, 2019, and that an interim order staying the operation of the challenged order had been passed on Nov 18, 2019.Despite the petition remaining pending for nearly six years, the petitioner sought its withdrawal solely on the ground that his grievance had been settled.The court observed: “What is conspicuously absent, however, is any disclosure as to in what manner the alleged grievance has been settled. The bald assertion that the grievance has been settled cannot be accepted at its face value, particularly when the petition has remained pending for years.”Against this backdrop, the court remarked: “This court cannot lose sight of the disturbing circumstances prevailing in the basic education department, where allegations of corruption and illegal gratification are frequently brought to its notice.”The court directed the District Basic Education Officer, Prayagraj, to file a personal affidavit explaining how the petitioner’s grievance was resolved. The officer has also been asked to clarify whether the impugned order was withdrawn, recalled, modified, or otherwise annulled, and if so, to provide details of the authority responsible, the date of such action, and the relevant documents.The affidavit must also disclose the circumstances under which any subsequent decision was taken and identify the officer who approved it.The matter has been listed for further hearing on Sept 10, 2026.
