Disposed¶18

Manoj Kumar v. the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2025WRIA/13116/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Promotion; Lecturer subject Hindi; Brij Bhushan Hajela Bharti Inter College, Talgram, Kannauj; mandamus; undecided representations dated 15.05.2025, 19.05.2025, 31.05.2025; fresh representation; District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) Kannauj; speaking and reasoned order; time-bound decision (six weeks); disposed of without entering merits; Allahabad High Court; WRIT - A No. 13116 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file a fresh representation before respondent no.2 (District Inspector of Schools, Kannauj) within two weeks of production of the certified copy; respondent no.2 directed to decide it in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within six weeks. Merits of the promotion claim were not gone into. ¶18

Manoj Kumar vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Lecturer (subject Hindi) at Brij Bhushan Hajela Bharti Inter College, Talgram, Kannauj. +1 more

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Without entering into the merits, and as the State raised no objection, the Court allowed the innocuous prayer and directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation, along with the writ petition and certified copy of the order, before respondent no.2 within two weeks of production of the certified copy.

¶17

Key takeaways

Respondent no.2, the District Inspector of Schools, Kannauj, is directed to decide the fresh representation in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within six weeks of receiving it.ratio¶17
With the aforesaid directions/observations, the writ petition is disposed of.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WRIT - A No. 13116 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Chandra Dhari Singh, J., decided September 18, 2025): Manoj Kumar sought mandamus for promotion to the post of Lecturer (subject Hindi) at Brij Bhushan Hajela Bharti Inter College, Talgram, Kannauj, and a direction to Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 to decide his representations dated 15.05.2025, 19.05.2025 and 31.05.2025 by speaking and reasoned orders. Without entering into the merits, and with no objection from learned Standing Counsel for the State, the Court allowed the innocuous prayer: the petitioner was permitted to file a fresh representation before respondent no.2, the District Inspector of Schools, Kannauj, within two weeks of production of the certified copy, who was directed to decide it in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within six weeks. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 13116 of 2025

¶3

Manoj Kumar

¶4

.....Petitioner(s) Versus

¶5

The State Of U.P. And 4 Others

¶6

			.....Res	pondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Shakti Chandra	Shanker Tiwari	Tiwari,	Subhash
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.
Court No.- 32

¶7

HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

¶8

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following main prayer:-

¶9

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the services of petitioner on post of Lecturer subject Hindi in the institution in question namely Brij Bhushan Hajela Bharti Inter College, Talgram, Kannauj, in the interest of justice.

¶10

(ii) A direction may be given to Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 to decide the représentations dated 15.05.2025, 19.05.2025 and 31.05.2025 moved by Petitioner by speaking and reasoned order within specific period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice."

¶11

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner without entering into merits of the case, made an innocuous prayer that the petitioner may be permitted to file a fresh representation before respondent no.2 and a direction may be issued to him to decide the same in time bound manner.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents vehemently opposed the writ petition on merits, but has not opposed the innocuous prayer as made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶13

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Santosh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appeared on advance accepted notice on behalf of the State-respondents, perused the contents made in the writ

¶14

WRIA No. 13116 of 2025

¶15

¶16

petition and the documents on record.

¶17

Without entering into merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as no objection made on behalf of learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents. Petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation along with present writ petition as well as certified copy of this order before respondent no.2 within two weeks' from the date of production of certified copy of this order. After receiving the said representation, respondent no.2, District Inspector of Schools, Kannauj is directed to decide the said representation in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving of the said representation.

¶18

With the aforesaid directions/observations, the present writ petition is disposed of .

¶19

(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)

¶20

September 18, 2025 Atul

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kumar v. the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Sanjeev Mohan Sharma vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Virendra Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Markandey Pratap Shahi vs State of U.P. through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education and 5 Others

Committee of Management and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pooja Yadav vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Committee of Management, Sri Maheshwar Inter College Sasni Gate and 2 Others vs State of Up and 8 Others