Dismissed¶19

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2025WRIA/13233/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

locus standi of complainant in writ petitions; writ petition dismissed as not maintainable; mandamus to cancel illegal appointment; recovery of illegally paid salary; FIR and departmental action against erring officers and school management; Ram Harakh Pre-Secondary School, Kusha, Jaunpur; respondent no.5 Brijesh Kumar Yadav; Full Bench precedent Vivekanand Yadav vs. State of U.P., 2010(10) ADJ 1 (FB); Co-ordinate Bench precedent Narendra Kumar vs. State of U.P., 2013(1) ADJ 228; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.; WRIT-A No. 13233 of 2025; decision dated September 8, 2025.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner, being a complainant, has no locus standi to file the writ petition; accordingly the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. ¶18

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 13233 of 2025

¶3

Ashok Kumar Yadav

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)		: Varun Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)		: C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 52

¶7

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents-State.

¶9

The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs:-

¶10

"i. a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing to the respondents authorities to cancel the illegal appointment of respondent no.5 (Shri Brijesh Kumar Yadav) in Ram Harakh Pre-Secondary School, Kusha, Jaunpur.

¶11

II. a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing to Respondents to recover the entire salary illegally paid to respondent no.5 from the management and the concerned officials responsible for such payment.

¶12

III. a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing to Respondents to lodge F.I.R. and initiate departmental action against the erring officers and management for violation of statutory rules and causing financial loss to the State exchequer.

¶13

......"

¶14

At very outset, learned Standing Counsel states that this is complainant's petition and the petitioner being complainant has no locus to file such petition, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vivekanand Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2010(10) ADJ 1 (FB) and the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in

¶15

WRIA No. 13233 of 2025

¶16

¶17

2013(1) ADJ 228.

¶18

In view of the above, the petitioner being complainant has no locus to file the petition.

¶19

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶20

September 8, 2025 Jitendra/-

¶21

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Poonam vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishna Kant Sharma vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Manish Bajpai vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rafath Naaz Saiyyd vs State of U.P. and Another

Akash vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vale Khan vs State of U.P.