Dismissed

Uttar Pradesh Class-Iv State Employees Association and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2024WRIA/9685/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-filling of 144 vacant Class-IV posts before Maha Kumbh 2025. The court held the association lacked locus standi and that mandamus cannot compel appointment as it is the employer's prerogative.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for lack of maintainability.

Uttar Pradesh Class-Iv State Employees Association… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:111786

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9685 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Uttar Pradesh Class-Iv State Employees Association And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shiv Kumar Patel, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Monika Arya, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶7

By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner no. 1-Uttar Pradesh ClassIV State Employees Association, Prayagraj, petitioner no. 2-Rajesh Kumar and petitioner no. 3-Virendra Kumar Mishra have sought issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to fill up the sanctioned 144 vacant posts of Class IV employees in Collectorate, District Prayagraj (including all the tehsils) before Maha Kumbh 2025.

¶8

It has not been disclosed as to what is the legal character of the petitioner no. 1and whether it is a juristic person or not.

¶9

In Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bharthana & Anr: AIR 1984 All 46 , a Full Bench of this Court has held that an association can maintain a writ petition only for enforcement of rights of an association and not for any right of the members of the association. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner no. 1 is not maintainable for want of

¶10

locus standi. So far as the petitioners no. 2 & 3 are concerned, they are said to be working on Class-IV posts and, therefore, they are not seeking any appointment and the failure of the authorities to hold any selection and make appointments would not result in violation of any legally enforceable right of the petitioners no. 2 & 3. Even otherwise, it is for the employer to decide whether it wants to make appointments to fill any posts and no mandamus can be issued to the authorities for filling up the vacant Class-IV posts.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed as such.

¶12

Order Date :- 9.7.2024 Pradeep/-

¶13

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

Uttar Pradesh Class-Iv State Employees Association and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttar Pradesh Class-Iv State Employees Association and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar Tyagi vs State of Up and 4 Others

Smtnirmala Devi vs State of Up and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs State of Up and 3 Others

Meena Tiwari vs State of Up and 3 Others

Mohd Farooq Ansari vs State of U.P. and 4 Others