Employee sought implementation of promotion kept under sealed cover pending criminal trial at a medical institute. Court found Regulation 66 provisions contradictory and held the petition premature as cause of action would arise only after 19th May, 2025; no directions issued.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45772
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2688 of 2024
Petitioner :- Dhirendra Pratap Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Education Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shubham Tripathi
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
applicable upon institute, it appears that there is contradiction in provisions of Regulation 66(1)(b) and 66(2) and 66(3). However it is open to the institute concerned to resolve such contradiction.
Order Date :- 5.7.2024 prabhat
Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the sealed cover promotion recommendation could be acted upon before expiry of one year from the date it was kept under sealed cover.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Dhirendra Pratap Pal
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Education Lko.
Shubham Tripathi (Opposite Party No.2)
Manish Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
