The petitioner sought to quash a resolution selecting another candidate and direct her appointment. The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh challenge against the specific appointment order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12197 of 2022 Petitioner :- Mamta Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash,Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 to 5 and Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no. 6.
By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-
"Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the for the record and quashing the impugned Resolution no. 4 dated 27.8.2021 passed by respondent no. 6 for the selection of respondent no. 7 on the post of Panchayat Sahayak / Account Officer -Cum- Data Entry Operator.
b. Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent no. 2 to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner being eligible to be selected on the post of Panchayat Sahayak / Account Officer -Cum- Data Entry Operator."
Learned Standing Counsel at the outset has submitted that the selection was only for one year and one year is about to expire in the month of September, 2022. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that appointment letter had already been issued to respondent no. 7 which has not been challenged by the petitioner.
The objection of learned Standing Counsel appears to have force.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition with a liberty to file a fresh petition.
The selection of respondent no. 2 was made on 27.08.2021 and it is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 7 has appointed on the aforesaid post, however, the appointment has not been challenged by the petitioner and accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn giving liberty to learned counsel for the petitioner to file a fresh petition challenging the impugned order of respondent no. 7.
Order Date :- 23.8.2022/RC
Digitally signed by RAM CHANDER YADAV Date: 2022.08.24 10:14:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Mamta Kumari
State Of U.P.
6 Others
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
