Dismissed

Snehil Kunwar Singh v. Honble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Another

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2024WRIA/19030/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A judicial officer resigned from U.P.P.C.S. (J) service during probation after being selected for the IAS, then sought reinstatement claiming a lien on his post. The court found no statutory basis for a lien and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Snehil Kunwar Singh vs Honble High Court of… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:189886-DB

¶2

Court No. - 39

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19030 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Snehil Kunwar Singh

¶5

Respondent :- Honble High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Bihaan Pandey,Varad Nath Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Mishra,C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Varad Nath along with Sri Bihaan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 (the High Court), Sri Anupam Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.2 and perused the records.

¶8

The present petition has been filed praying for the following relief:

¶9

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.08.2024 passed by respondent no.1 to the extent it restricts the petitioner from exercising his right to lien and all other consequential orders insofar as they restrict the petitioner from exercising his right to lien over the post of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Azamgarh."

¶10

The facts of the present case are peculiar. The petitioner first appeared for the U.P.P.C.S. (J) Examination, 2022. While that selection process was pending, he also appeared for the U.P.S.C. Examination, 2023. Awaiting the result of that examination, the petitioner came to be selected against the U.P.P.C.S. (J) Examination, 2022 and he joined that service on 5.1.2024. While he was serving mandatory probation period as a U.P.P.C.S. (J) Officer, he received a 'Interview Call' from the U.P.S.C. He sought permission from the High Court and appeared at that Interview. Upon declaration of results, he was declared successful and

¶11

selected. Consequently, he resigned his position from the U.P.P.C.S. (J) and has joined the Indian Administrative Services in the State of Uttrakhand.

¶12

At this stage, the proverbial wisdom of the grass being greener on the other side of the pasture, dawned on the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he wants to serve the judicial service, hence, he seeks his reinstatement in the Judicial Service, consequent to his selection in U.P.P.C.S. (J) Examination, 2022 to that end he claims lien.

¶13

On the other hand, learned counsel for the High Court states that there is absolutely no lien existing. There is no scope to reconsider resignation from service offered by the petitioner, either by the High Court or the State Government. Referring to Rule 9(13) of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, 1942 read with Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh State Government Servants Confirmation Rules, 1991, it has been submitted, undoubtedly the petitioner resigned his position from the U.P.P.C.S. (J), while on probation. Though, the petitioner described it as a conditional resignation and claims lien, but lien could not be granted. The resignation offered was accepted by the High Court and recommended accordingly to the State Government. The State Government has issued the consequential notification on 19.9.2024. Therefore, the issue does not survive for reconsideration by the respondents.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in face of the statutory law, noted above, we find no defect in the order passed by the respondents in accepting the resignation of the petitioner without provision for lien. Insofar as, the resignation has been accepted and has attained finality, no room survives to require any of the respondent-authorities to reconsider the issue on equitable

¶15

considerations. Equitable consideration as may exist, must recognize and may not override clear statutory law, commending otherwise.

¶16

Thus, we find no occasion to offer interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶17

The writ petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.12.2024 CS/-

¶19

(Donadi Ramesh, J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Snehil Kunwar Singh v. Honble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Snehil Kunwar Singh v. Honble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suvir Gupta vs Dr. Richa Srivastava

Sumit Chaturvedi vs Union of India and Another

Deepak Bhargava vs Union of India and Another

Upendra Kumar vs Smt Suhani

Jugesh vs Smt. Phool Kumari

Krishna Kumar Dubey vs Up Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and 5 Others