Petitioner sought a writ directing authorities to decide her representation regarding employment defects. The court held the petition non-maintainable as there was no statutory right to representation or obligation on the authority to decide it, relying on precedents against misuse of writ jurisdiction.
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. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18454 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shilpa Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Prasad Yadav,Vivek Singh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Vivek Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following relief:-
"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 i.e. Additional Director of Basic Education, U.P. at Prayagraj to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 15.12.2019 in the light of direction dated 15.12.2019 given by Sateesh Mahana, Hon'ble Minister, Industrial Development Department, Govt. of U.P. to the respondent no. 4 and also decided the representation dated 25.06.2021 moved by the father of the petitioner, within stipulated time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court (Annexure No. 2 & 4 to the writ petition)."
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the writ petition with the only prayer to decide the representation is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. vs. G. Srinivas Reddy & Ors. reported in AIR 2006 SC 1465 , wherein it has been held that a writ with the prayer to decide the representation is not maintainable if there is no statutory provision for filing the representation. Relevant part of the judgment of the Supreme Court reads as under: -
"19. There are also several instances where unscrupulous petitioners with the connivance of "pliable" authorities have misused the direction "to consider" issued by court. We may illustrate by an example. A claim, which is stale, time-barred or untenable, is put forth in the form of a representation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reasonable time, the person making the representation approaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the authority to "consider" and dispose of the representation. When the court disposes of the petition with a direction to "consider", the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the court directing him to "consider" the grant of relief. Instances are also not wanting where authorities, unfamiliar with the process and practice relating to writ proceedings and the nuances of judicial review, have interpreted or understood the order "to consider" as directing grant of relief sought in the representation and consequently granting reliefs which
otherwise could not have been granted. Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving relief, in pursuance of orders to "consider", may be on account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they should grant relief in view of the court's direction to "consider" the claim, or on account of collusion/connivance between the person making the representation and the authority deciding it. Representations of dailywagers seeking regularisation/absorption into regular service is a species of cases, where there has been a large-scale misuse of the orders "to consider"."
Reference may also be made to the judgement of this Court in the case of Daya Shankar Pande vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2001(1) AWC 671 . Para 15 of the said judgment reads as follows:-
"15.The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that against the order passed by D.I.O.S. disapproving petitioner's appointment, the petitioner has filed an appeal/representation on 16.3.1999 before the Deputy Director of Education on 14.11.2000 and a direction be issued for deciding the aforesaid appeal/representation. The argument is devoid of any merit for two reasons. Firstly, Second Order under which the appointments on short-term vacancies are made, do not provide for any appeal/representation to the Deputy Director of Education or the Director of Education. The provision of appeal was only in First Order where appointments against substantive vacancies were made. Since the State Government did not provide for any appeal or representation to the educational authorities against short-term appointments, the appeal/representations of the petitioner were not made under any provision of law, therefore, no direction can be issued for deciding the same. The other reason is that First and Second Orders have been deleted with effect from 25.1.1999 and they being no more in existence, any appeal/representation under First or Second Orders could not be made by the petitioner. Further, it having been held that the appointment of petitioner was defective as it had been made without following the mandatory procedure under the Removal of Difficulties Orders no direction can be issued to educational authorities to decide the appeal/representation of the petitioner."
In view of the above, such a relief cannot be granted as the petitioner does not have any statutory right in her favour to get such representation decided nor there is any statutory obligation on the part of the respondents to decide such representation. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Order Date :- 19.4.2022 Noman
Digitally signed by NOMAN AHMAD Date: 2022.04.21 12:11:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking a direction to decide a representation is maintainable in the absence of a statutory provision for appeal or representation.
Whether the court can direct the authority to decide a representation when there is no statutory obligation on the authority to do so.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
A.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. vs. G. Srinivas Reddy & Ors.Referred¶9
AIR 2006 SC 1465 · Who else cites this
Daya Shankar Pande vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶12
2001(1) AWC 671
Shilpa Yadav
State Of U.P.
Additional Director of Basic Education, U.P.
Rajiv Joshi
Noman Ahmad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
