Mohd. Muzahid and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65843

Court No. - 4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8299 of 2024

Petitioner :- Mohd. Muzahid And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Singh,Shiv Shankar Singh,Vaibhav Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Diwakar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Utsav Mishra who has filed 'Vakalatnama' on behalf of U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Lucknow, the opposite party no. 2, same is taken on record.

¶7

By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed following relief :

¶8

" Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the final result of revenue lekhpal dated 30.12.2023 with respect to the hard hearing candidates filed as Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition.

¶9

ii- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding the respondent no.2 to declare the fresh result of revenue lekhpal with respect to the hard hearing candidates after removing the names of deaf candidates from the final result dated 30.12.2023."

¶10

Sri Utsav Mishra has drawn attention of this Court towards one order dated 2.9.2024 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 6977 of 2024 (Sarvesh Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. & others which was finally disposed of on the ground that the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically directed on 21.11.2023 that neither the High Court of Allahabad nor the subordinate courts thereto shall entertain any petition with regard to examination in question, which shall be taken to its logical conclusion by the Commission. The aforesaid order has been clarified by the Apex Court on 19.2.2024 after the declaration of the final result on 30.12.2023 and the Apex Court on 19.2.2024 has clarified the earlier order directing that any petition filed after 21.11.2023 questioning any of the answer keys to the questions in any of the Booklet series or any other issue related to the subject examination shall not be entertained by the High Court. For the convenience the order dated 2.9.2024 (supra) reads as under:

¶11

" 1. Heard Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri

¶12

Sandeep Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for the Stateopposite parties no.1 & 2 and Sri Utsav Misra, learned Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.3 and filed Vakalatnama. Said Vakalatnama is taken on record.

¶13

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main relief:-

¶14

"i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding/ directing the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Lekhpal in view of their quota being Ex-Servicemen/ military personnel provided in the advertisement and posts are still lying vacant with the opposite parties."

¶15

3. At the very outset, learned counsels for the opposite parties have raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition, precisely, on the ground that examination in question has been finalized on 30.12.2023 when the final result has been declared but the petitioners have not approached the Court immediately after declaration of the result; secondly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Shri Dhar Yadav and Others Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., Diary No.24736 of 2023 with Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18303 of 2023, has passed an order in para-10 on 21.11.2023, whereby it has been directed that neither the High Court of Allahabad nor the subordinate Courts thereto shall entertain any petition with regard to examination in question, which shall be taken to its logical conclusion by the Commission and the aforesaid order has been clarified by the Apex Court on 19.02.2024 in re; Shri Dhar Yadav and Ors. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Miscellaneous Application No.276/2024 in SLP (C) No.25828/2023, by observing in para-5 (III) that any petition filed after 21.11.2023, questioning any of the answer keys to the questions in any of the Booklet Series or any other issue related to the subject examination, shall not be entertained by the High Court, therefore, this writ petition at this stage may not be maintained.

¶16

4. On that submission, Sri A.M. Tripathi has tried to submit that opposite party no.3 issued a letter dated 02.05.2023 (Annexure No.3) indicating the quota of reserved category but vide order dated 20.11.2023 (Annexure No.4), such quota has been reduced. As per letter dated 16.01.2024, which is part of Annexure No.4, preferred by the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow addressing to all the Commissioners of U.P. indicating therein that quota in reserved category relating to Devi Patan Mandal is unfulfilled, therefore, for the limited prayer, the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶17

5. Be that as it may, if the petitioners have not approached this Court after declaring the final result on 30.12.2023 and keeping in view the order of the Apex Court dated 21.11.2023 (supra) and subsequent order dated 19.02.2024 (supra) whereby the Apex Court has directed that no writ petition would be entertained relating to the examination in question, I hereby decline to entertain this petition.

¶18

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed being misconceived."

¶19

In the aforesaid writ petition i.e. Sarvesh Kumar Pandey (supra) learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that the quota of reservation was not properly applied and in the present case the issue of quota has been raised but the fact remains that when the Hon'ble Apex Court in its two orders has directed that such petitions may not be entertained, therefore, this Court may not entertain this petition.

¶20

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed .

¶21

No order as to costs.

¶22

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]

¶23

Order Date :- 23.9.2024 Om

¶24

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Muzahid and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Muzahid and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Samsuddin and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Sushil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko and Another

Dr. Arvind Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 2 Others

Shaad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Sectt. Deptt. Home and 3 Others

Haidar Dharikar Alias Haidar Banbanshi vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ranveer Singh @ Banti Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.