Disposed

Krishan Murari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2023WRIA/1329/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding promotion grievance and sealed recommendation, the Court held that since the matter concerns respondent No. 2, the petitioner must file a representation to be decided by the Authority via a reasoned order within six weeks before the Court interferes.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the pending representation by a speaking order within six weeks.

Krishan Murari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1329 of 2023 Petitioner :- Krishan Murari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Govind,Sarvesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶4

The grievance as raised by the petitioner is regarding his promotion as well as the issue that his recommendation has been kept in a sealed cover. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already raised the matter before the Authority concerned by moving a representation dated 26.12.2022, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 3 which has yet not been decided and the petitioner is suffering by the non-action of the respondent-authorities.

¶5

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the fact that the matter is already engaging the attention of the respondent no. 2, accordingly, the issue regarding the case of the petitioner is to be decided by the Authority at the first instance, accordingly, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to call for the counter affidavit or to seek instructions from the State rather is of the opinion that ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner by a speaking and reasoned order intimating the same to the petitioner preferrably within a period of six weeks from the date, a certified copy of this order is placed before the Authority concerned.

¶6

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of the petitioner on merits and the Authority concerned shall decide the same strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and law as well as considering the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 which has been followed by this Court in the case of Neeraj Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-A No. 8151 of 2022 decided on 26.05.2022 as well as recently in the case of Ranbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-A No. 1789 of 2022 decided on 08.02.2023 .

¶7

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

¶8

Order Date :- 21.2.2023/Asheesh

¶9

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishan Murari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Murari 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saroj Devi Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Rinku Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Girija Shankar Prasad Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Vimla Devi Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Baburam Bahadur Vs Union of India and 2 Others