Dismissed

Dhananjay Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2018WRIA/12122/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court, upon revision callsuperior review, dismissed a writ petition where petitioner could not appear for interview due to fresh caste certificate requirement. Are Ar reliefs sought found unmeritorious. No. When decided on merits due to counsel absence or lack of interest. /v beneficial no date. Dismissed. Interim. VACATED. Handled on merits. Disposed of. Dismissed no time taken. Since. Disco

What the court decided

AI extract

Dhananjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors. — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12122 of 2014

¶3

Petitioner :- Dhananjay Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- K.M. Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶5

Called in revise. None appeared on behalf of petitioner. However, we ourselves have perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

¶7

“ (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad to allow the petitioner to appear in the interview of the Combined State/ Upper Subordinate Service Examination-2012 scheduled for 25.02.2014 and not to cancel his candidature for want of fresh Caste Certificate not order than six months.

¶8

(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the condition put by the UPPSC in the call letter for the petitioner (Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe candidate) to produce fresh Caste Certificate not older than six months in order to avail the benefit of reservation as ultra vires, unconstitutional and void in the eye of law.

¶9

(c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Authorities that in case the petitioner is declared successful in the interview as Scheduled Tribe category his candidature may be provisionally forwarded for appointment against the post he is declared selected.”

¶10

However, we ourselves have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that petitioner is not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for.

¶11

Moreover, it appears that either the cause of action no more survives or that petitioner has lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits and that is why, counsel for petitioner is absent.

¶12

Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶13

Order Date :- 17.4.2018 AK

Dhananjay Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dhananjay Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Emc Limited Vs Union of India through Ministry of Railways through Its Secretary and 3 Others

O.P. Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogendra Chauhan Vs Union of India and Anr.

Anshuman Kumar Pathak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Praveen Kumar Mishra Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others