Dismissed¶14

Sudheer Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 8 Others

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2025WPIL/2655/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court PIL (WPIL No. 2655 of 2025), Sudheer Kumar v. State of U.P. and 8 others, decided October 6, 2025 by Arun Bhansali, CJ and Kshitij Shailendra, J: petition dismissed for want of bona fides. Keywords: public interest litigation dismissed; name giver / name-lender petitioner; agriculturist petitioner with no nexus to subject matter; promotion order dated 20.08.2013; Rule 18, U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981; Education Department promotions; petition filed at behest of affected person; abuse of PIL process; no precedent cited; no costs or quantum awarded.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner, an agriculturist, has no possible connection with the promotions made in the year 2013 or the welfare of the employees of the Education Department; such connection is absolutely absent from the petition.

Sudheer Kumar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 8 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2655 of 2025

¶3

Sudheer Kumar

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and 8 others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Pranesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Rajiv Singh, S.C., Shivendra Kumar Singh, Yatindra
Chief Justice's Court

¶6

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

¶7

This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed on 29.08.2025 seeking to question the promotion order dated 20.08.2013 alleging the same in violation of the Rule 18 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981.

¶8

A perusal of the petition indicates that the petitioner claims himself to be a public spirited and law abiding citizen and wants the welfare of employees of the Education Department and further claims that he has no personal or private interest in the matter.

¶9

In the affidavit sworn by the petitioner he has indicated his occupation as agriculture.

¶10

As to what possible connection, the petitioner an agriculturist can have in relation to promotions made in the year 2013 and welfare of the employees of the Education Department, is absolutely absent from the petition. Apparently, the petitioner is only a name giver and the petition has been filed at the behest of someone, affected by the order dated

¶11

WPIL No. 2655 of 2025

¶12

¶13

20.08.2013 and who has either not challenged it or cannot challenge it.

¶14