PIL seeking compliance with Rule 49 qualification requirements for Drug Inspectors, targeting one appointee's experience credentials. State said allegations were factually incorrect. Court found the petition was filed for personal vengeance and dismissed it without entertaining it.
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. - 2025:AHC:110656-DB
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 203 of 2025
Petitioner :- Jaideep Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and 23 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Srivastava, Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot, Rajesh Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Seema Agarwal (S.C.)
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
incorporated in the service rules and all the recruitments are based on the requirement of the Rules and therefore, the plea raised in this regard has no substance.
Order Date :- 10.7.2025 P.Sri./RK
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a PIL could be entertained to enforce Rule 49 qualifications for Drug Inspectors and challenge one appointee's eligibility.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jaideep Kumar
State of U.P.
Arun Bhansali
Kshitij Shailendra
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
