Disposed

Akhand Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Oct 2024WRIA/10147/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought consideration for regularisation as Collection Amin, alleging juniors were regularised while his candidature was overlooked. Writ petition disposed of with direction to Collector/District Magistrate, Pratapgarh to consider and decide a fresh representation by reasoned and speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file fresh representation within three weeks; respondent no. 2 to decide it within two months by reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

Akhand Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:72736

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10147 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Akhand Pratap Singh

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶8

Grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is with regard to non consideration of petitioner's candidature for regularisation on the post of Collection Amin.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that persons junior to the petitioner have been regularised on the post of Collection Amin but candidature of petitioner has been deliberately overlooked and not considered for the same.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the matter up to some length submits that grievance of petitioner shall be sufficiently redressed in case respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for regularisation on the post of Collection Amin under 35% quota according to Sub-Rule 1(i)(b) of the U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection in case suitable directions are issued to respondent no. 2 - Collector/District Magistrate, Pratapgarh to consider the case of the petitioner under relevant Service Rules.

¶12

Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move fresh detailed representation before respondent no. 2 within three weeks from today, raising all grievance annexing a certified copy of this order. In case such representation is moved within the stipulated period, respondent no. 2 - Collector/District Magistrate, Pratapgarh is directed to proceed to consider and decide the said representation expeditiously, say within two months from the date of receipt of representation, in accordance with law by means of reasoned and speaking order in case there is no legal impediment and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

¶13

Order Date :- 25.10.2024 A. Verma

¶14

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Akhand Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhand Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Santosh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Balram Pno. No. 830560138 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lok Bhawan Lko and 2 Others

Ali Musi Raza Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 5 Others

Ajay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy State Tax Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Arthur Cocker vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Kallu and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another