Dismissed

Moti Lal Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Secondary Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2023/174/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A second PIL challenging 89 alleged illegal appointments was dismissed as not maintainable under Allahabad High Court Rules due to prior dismissal and lack of specific particulars regarding the appointments, without violating substantive rules.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to seek redressal through representations to the State Government.

Moti Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 174 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Moti Lal Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Secondary Education Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Moti Lal yadav, petitioner, in person and Ms. Isha Mittal, learned State Counsel.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed challenging 89 appointments of L.T. Grade Teachers, Assistant Teachers, Clerks and Peons in various Girls Colleges in Lucknow District.

¶7

The petitioner had previously filed a P.I.L. (Civil) No. 17151 of 2021 on the same subject and that writ petition was dismissed by means of an order dated 10.8.2021 noting that "it appears that the State Government is already ceased with the matter and some inquiry was ordered, which is in progress. It is for the State Government to take appropriate decision and do the needful. We do not find it necessary to grant indulgence. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed."

¶8

The petitioner claims that he had served a copy of the aforesaid order dated 10.8.2021 to the responsible officers of the Government by means of a representation dated 22.9.22021 and, thereafter, he sent reminders also, but to no avail. He further submits that in view of the aforesaid facts the cause-ofaction survives and the second petition is maintainable.

¶9

The previous petition had been filed by the petitioner challenging 89 appointments on the posts of L.T. Grade

¶10

Teachers, Assistant Teachers, Clerks and Peons on the ground that the government order dated 25.3.2012 provides that in case any vacancy is lying vacant for more than three months, the said vacancy can be filled only after taking permission of the Director, Secondary Education of U.P. and the appointments were made without seeking permission from the Director, in violation of the provisions contained in the aforesaid government order dated 25.3.2012. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that it is for the State Government to take appropriate action and do the needful. No direction was issued by this Court to the Government to take any action and the writ petition was dismissed by means of an order dated 10.8.2021. The petitioner has filed this second writ petition with the same prayer and on the same ground.

¶11

Chapter XXII Rule 7 of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1852 provides as follows:

¶12

"7. Question of maintainability -Should be raised at the first instance. It is a normal practice of the High Court that when the affidavits are exchanged and the writ petitions are pending for final hearing since long, the question of maintainability of the writ petition on account of availability of the alternative remedy, should not be allowed to be raised. Furthermore, it is a settled law that question of maintainability of the writ petition is to be raised at the first instance and once the writ petition is admitted, the question of maintainability of the petition goes and it cannot be raised later on."

¶13

A second writ petition filed by the petitioner for the same relief is clearly hit by the provisions of Chapter XXII Rule 7 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and the same is not maintainable.

¶14

Even on merits, we find that although the petitioner has pleaded that 89 illegal appointments have been made on the posts of L.T. Grade Teachers, Assistant Teachers, Clerks and Peons, the petition does not disclose the particulars of the 89

¶15

appointments. In absence of requisite particulars, this court cannot adjudicate about the legality of those 89 appointments and in these circumstances no direction can be issued by this court regarding those appointments.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant petition is hereby dismissed, however it will be open to the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievances by other means, including approaching the State Government by submitting a representation.

¶17

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. ) ( Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. )

¶18

Order Date :- 3.3.2023 A.Nigam

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Moti Lal Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Secondary Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moti Lal Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Secondary Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mishri Lal Vs Union of India through Chairman Railway and 2 Ors.

Ram Sanehi Adult and 8 Others Vs Union of India through General Manager N.E.R.and 2 Others

Swaminath Pandey Inre W.P.NO.3006SS2000 Vs Ram Lal and 4 Others

Indrawati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others

Divya Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Its Additional Chief Secy. (Revenue) Lko. and 2 Others

Om Prakash Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Urban Development Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko. and Others