Allowed

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC24 May 2024/3615/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's appointment as a PRD Volunteer. The court held that the impugned order violated a prior judgment mandating consideration of specific letters, ordering the authority to pass a fresh decision within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.02.2024 quashed; authority directed to pass fresh order considering letters dated 22.07.2020 and 08.12.2020 within six weeks.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39820

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3615 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Rahul Kumar Singh

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶8

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State-respondent(s).

¶10

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is finally being decided.

¶11

The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.02.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner for being appointed as PRD Volunteer has been rejected.

¶12

There is a consensus at Bar that the facts of the case have already been set forth in the order dated 09.05.2024. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 09.05.2024 is reproduced below:

¶13

"1. Heard.

¶14

2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claim of the petitioner for being appointed as PRD Volunteer has been rejected vide order dated 15.02.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The contention is that the initial training which the petitioner under went in the year 1991-1992 and thereafter in the year 2011-2012 and having again participated in a camp in the year 2018-2019 has not been recorded in the relevant records as has been indicated by the Deputy Director of Youth Welfare and Prantiya Rakshak Dal, U.P., Lucknow i.e. respondent no.3 in his letter dated 08.12.2020, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition.

¶15

3. As the claim of the petitioner was not considered he was constrained to

¶16

file Writ-A No.6166 of 2023 in re: Mahaveer @ Mahabir and 6 others vs. State of U.P. and others, in which the petitioner was petitioner no.3. The writ Court vide judgment and order dated 22.08.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition, disposed of the petition without entering into the merits of case requiring the Zila Yuvak Kalyan Evam Pradeshik Vikas Dal Adhikari, Lucknow to consider the recommendations of respondent no.3 taking into account the letters dated 22.07.2020 and 08.12.2020 within a period of six weeks.

¶17

4. The contention is that although by means of order impugned dated 15.02.2024 the claim of the petitioner for his appointment has been rejected yet no cognizance has been given to the letter dated 08.12.2020 as was submitted by respondent no.3 which thus vitiates the order impugned.

¶18

5. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions in the matter.

¶19

6. List in the next week as fresh."

¶20

On perusal of the aforesaid order, it emerges that the writ Court in the earlier round of litigation namely in Writ A No.6166 of 2023 in Re: Mahabir @ Mahabir & 6 Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. decided on 22.07.2023, in which the instant petitioner was petitioner No.3, had directed the Zila Yuvak Kalyan Evam Pradeshik Vikas Dal Adhikari, Lucknow to consider the recommendations of the Deputy Director, Youth Welfare and Prantiya Rakshak Dal, U.P., Lucknow taking into account the letters dated 22.07.2020 & 08.12.2020. It emerges that in pursuance to the order of writ Court, the order impugned dated 15.02.2024 has been passed whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected but no cognizance to the letters dated 22.07.2020 & 08.12.2020 has been given while passing the order impugned.

¶21

This Court had required the learned Standing counsel to seek instructions in the matter vide order dated 09.05.2024.

¶22

Today, learned Standing counsel, on the basis of instructions sent by the respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Director, Youth Welfare and Prantiya Rakshak Dal, U.P., Lucknow dated 22.05.2024, states that the aforesaid letters dated 22.07.202 & 08.12.2020

¶23

were not considered as the said letters were based on the apprehension of the authorities concerned.

¶24

The aforesaid explanation has not found satisfactory by this Court inasmuch as, once the writ Court, vide judgment & order dated 22.08.2023, had required the respondent No.4 to consider the said letters dated 22.07.2020 & 08.12.2020 as such, it was the duty of the competent authority to have considered the said letters and may have taken a different view but there was no occasion for total non consideration of the said letters.

¶25

Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 15.02.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, is quashed. The competent authority is required to pass a fresh order in view of the discussion made above and considering the letters dated 22.07.2020 & 08.12.2020. Let such a decision be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶26

Order Date :- 24.5.2024 S. Shivhare

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Savita Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Upper Chief Secretary Deptt. of Secondry Edu. Lko and 9 Others

Dr.Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Animal Husbandry Lko. and Another

Abdul Mujib Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Medical and Health U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Abhay Chandra Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj, U.P. Lucknow and 4 Others

Anita Sonker Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar, Lko. U.P. and 4 Others

Mahesh Kumar Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayti Raj Lko. and Others