Dismissed

Sushil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2018WRIA/18302/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging a decision rejecting a representation against a compassionate appointment made 8 years ago. The court found no merit due to the delay and lack of bona fides in the petitioner's complaint.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed by holding that the petitioner had no claim and the complaint was not bona fide.

Sushil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18302 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶3

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12/19.04.2018 passed by Director, Education (Secondary), Uttar Pradesh on his representation dated 03.05.2017. The petitioner had approached this Court in Writ A No.57122 of 2017. This Court vide order dated 30.11.2017 directed the respondent, Director, Education (Secondary) to decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order. The impugned order has been passed in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 30.11.2017 passed by this Court in Writ A No.51722 of 2017.

¶4

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of one Shri Harendra Bahadur Singh on the post of Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules. The ground for challenge of appointment of Shri Harendra Bahadur Singh on the post of Assistant Teacher is that his certificates in support of his qualifications were forged and fabricated. This complaint has been made by the petitioner after a lapse of 8 years since Shri Harendra Bahadur Singh was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher. The Director has considered all evidence produced by the parties and has passed a well reasoned order.

¶5

3. This Court cannot re-examine the evidence which has been examined by the competent authority and a detailed order has been passed. Moreover, the petitioner for reason best known to him has challenged the appointment of Shri Harendra Bahadur Singh after 8 years. The petitioner has made a complaint on a letter pad of some freedom fighter and the Director has held that no such freedom fighter exists in the state of U.P.

¶6

4. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the petitioner has no claim against the post on which respondent No.4 was appointed 8 years before, learned Director has rightly held that the complaint of the petitioner is not bonafide and, therefore, the representation has been rightly rejected.

¶7

5. I do not find any merit and substance in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed.

¶8

Order Date :- 28.8.2018/prateek

Sushil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Ahmad Ansari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Fasahuddin Khan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rama Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rahul Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hari Babu Singh Vijai and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Hemant Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others