Partly allowed

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

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2022WRIA/13734/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding job joinability, finding the administration's refusal unlawful. It directed the respondent to enforce an earlier order compelling the Development Institute of Odisha Services to pass a final order on joining.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; respondent No. 2 is directed to proceed to give effect to the order dated 4.9.2013 and pass an appropriate reasoned order unless legal impediments exist.

Kaushal Kumar Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13734 of 2022 Petitioner :- Kaushal Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Bajpai,Vikrant Singh Parihar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vinod Singh

¶2

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶3

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶4

Heard Sri Vikrant Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gopal Chandra Saxena, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Ratish Singh, holding brief of learned counsel for respondent no.4.

¶5

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record inasmuch as the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by means of Writ-A No.46278 of 2013, Kaushal Kishore Singh vs. State of U.P. and others and that writ petition was disposed of by order dated 4.9.2013 requiring the DIOS to consider and redress the grievance of petitioner and further inasmuch as the DIOS has refused to pass any final order in view of certain recall application having been filed by the Committee of Management in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.10035 of 2007, at present no direction is required to be issued by this Court with respect to joining on the post, by the petitioner.

¶6

As to the reason disclosed in the communication dated 15.1.2014 issued by the DIOS, the same is wholly unsustainable. Mere pendency of recall application neither had the effect of restoring the proceedings that stood terminated by the final order passed therein (of which recall may be sought) nor it offered any legal impediment in proceeding to consider the matter on merits by the DIOS in light of clear direction of this Court dated 4.9.2013 in the case of the petitioner. Also the fact that recall application may have been allowed but interim order has not been revived also may not offer any reason to the DIOS to not give effect to the order dated 4.9.2013 passed in Writ-A No.46278 of 2013.

¶7

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction upon respondent no.2 to proceed to give effect to the order dated 4.9.2013 and pass appropriate reasoned order unless the respondents establish existence of any interim or final order in any proceedings as may prevent the DIOS from making such compliance.

¶8

Order Date :- 14.12.2022 SP

¶9

Digitally signed by SALIM PRAVEJ Date: 2022.12.19 11:02:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushal 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

Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs the State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ramesh Chandra Vishwakarma and 8 Others Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Deep Chand Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rampyari @ Budhrani Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pushpendra Kumar Nim Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sukhveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others