Disposed

Sureshanand Pandey v. C/M Swami Karpatri Ji Inter College Raniganj Pratapgarh Thru. Manager and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2025SPLA/418/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal by a class IV employee serving since 2000 against a writ judgment setting aside his appointment for want of prior approval under Regulation 101. The court stayed the impugned judgment, continued the writ court's interim order during pendency of the appeal, and allowed time for counter affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment stayed; writ court's interim order to continue during pendency of appeal; four weeks to counter affidavit, two weeks thereafter for rejoinder.

Sureshanand Pandey vs C/M Swami Karpatri Ji Inter… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 418 of 2025

Sureshanand Pandey

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

C/M Swami Karpatri Ji Inter College Raniganj Pratapgarh Thru. Manager And 3 Others

¶7

Pratapgarh Thru. Manager And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 1

¶9

HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.

¶10

After hearing the parties what comes out is that since 2000 the appellant has been working on the class IV post, even during pendency of the writ petition the interim order was operating and he has been receiving salary from State exchequer. In pursuance to interim order dated 23.08.2003 financial approval was accorded and accordingly, salary was paid to him, no doubt prior approval was not there but the question is what was the illegality otherwise in the selection and appointment of the appellant as it is claimed that post was sanctioned, vacancy was substantive, which was advertised and in pursuance there of the appellant was appointed. Purpose behind the provision for seeking prior approval under Regulation 101 is firstly to ensure that there be a sanctioned post, substantive vacancy and the process of selection is followed as per rules. Nothing to the contrary has been pointed out.

¶11

We are of the opinion that unless and until some fundamental illegality is shown in the process of selection and appointment, purely in the facts of the case, merely because prior approval was not taken though it has been accorded subsequently in pursuance to an interim order passed in writ proceedings, prima facie it would be too harsh to throw the appellant, a class iv employee, out of job, at this stage.

¶12

Looking into the entire scenario as the appellant has been working since 2000, we stay the impugned judgement and further provide that the interim order granted by the Writ Court shall continue to operate during

SPLA No. 418 of 2025

pendency of appeal.

All the respondents are accorded four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks, thereafter, to the appellant to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶17

List thereafter.

¶18

(Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶19

December 10, 2025

¶20

S.P.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sureshanand Pandey v. C/M Swami Karpatri Ji Inter College Raniganj Pratapgarh Thru. Manager and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sureshanand Pandey v. C/M Swami Karpatri Ji Inter College Raniganj Pratapgarh Thru. Manager and 3 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

Raj Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Surendra Kuamr Shukla vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways New Delhi and 4 Others

Shyam Kishore Yadav vs U.O.I. Thru. Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and 6 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko and 4 Others vs Smt. Satyavati

Ratan Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Practicing Com. Secy. Mr. Alakh Pandey vs Anil Kumar

U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director and Another Vs Ashok Kumar Seth and Another