Disposed

Satya Narayan Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2019WRIA/18461/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ for approval of promotion to Office Superintendent Grade-II. Court disposed of petition at admission stage, directing petitioner to file fresh representation to elicit independent decision from respondent authority.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make fresh representation within two weeks; respondent directed to pass appropriate order within two months.

Satya Narayan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18461 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Satya Narayan Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Upendra Kumar, Nipun Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3.

¶6

In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice need not to be issued to the respondent no.4.

¶7

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayer:-

¶8

" i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to accord approval to the promotion/appointment of the petitioner on to the post of Office Superintendent Grade-II at Shri Bajrang Snatakottar Mahavidyalaya, Dadar Ashram, Sikandarpur, District Ballia.

¶9

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to pass reasoned order upon the representation dated 27.10.2018, which duly served on 29.10.2018 in the office of respondent no.2 by reasoned and speaking order."

¶10

During the course of arguments petitioner has confined his prayer only to the extent of prayer no.2.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that papers were duly submitted and the matter pertaining to promotion of the petitioner is pending consideratin before the respondent no.2 from last more than four years. In this regard various representations were made by the petitioner from time to time but till date no decision has been taken by the respondent no.2.

¶12

No useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending hence with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶13

In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation ventillating all his grievances before the respondent no.2/Director of Education, Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad along-with certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the respondent no.2 is directed to pass

¶14

appropriate order in accordance with law within a further period of two months.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶16

It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case and thus it is for authority concerned to take a decision independently in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 22.11.2019

¶18

Pramod Tripathi

Satya Narayan Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Narayan Yadav 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

Ram Janam Singh Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Prabhawati Vs Assistnat Consolidation Officer and 2 Others

Reetu Rai and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 4 Others

Sajan Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Chhote Lal and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil Kumar Jharbade Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others