Petitioner challenged a recommendation letter seeking cancellation of his appointment approval. Petitioner's counsel argued lack of service, while State argued prematurity. Court held the order was merely a recommendation without formal cancellation, rendering the writ petition premature and dismissed it.
Petition dismissed as premature.
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. - 6291 of 2022
Petitioner :- Surendra Dev Chaubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kirtikar Pande
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Kritikar Pandey, learned counsel for the caveator and perused the record.
Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 8.9.2020 passed by respondent no.3Regional Joint Director of Education Azamgarh Region, District Azamgarh written a letter to Director of Education (Secondary), Lucknow recommending the cancellation of the approval letter of the petitioner dated 25.01.2016.
The stamp reporter reports that the writ petition is suffered from laches of 486 days.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a copy of the impugned order has been served when the petitioner filed Writ A No. 15749 of 2021 praying therein for getting benefit of old pension scheme then the said order came into his knowledge, even the copy of the said order has not been served upon the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel as well as counsel for the caveator submits that the impugned order contains only recommendation for disapproving the approval order of the petitioner and till date no order disapproving the appointment of the petitioner has been passed by the competent authority and as such, the writ petition against the said order, is not at all maintainable and is premature.
This Court, on the facts and circumstances of the case, feels that the impugned order is merely a recommendation of Director of Education (Secondary), Lucknow for cancellation of the approval order and till date, approval of the petitioner is not cancelled or recalled.
The writ petition is premature and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.4.2022 Noman
Digitally signed by NOMAN AHMAD Date: 2022.04.28 17:06:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petition challenging a mere recommendation for appointment cancellation is maintainable before the appointment is formally revoked.
Surendra Dev Chaubey
State Of U.P.
Rajiv Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
