Dismissed¶16

Ram Singh v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2025WRIA/14036/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Locus standi; maintainability of writ petition at instance of mere complainant; not an aggrieved party; challenge to compassionate-ground appointments of respondent nos. 6 and 7; dying in harness Rules, 1974; District Basic Education Officer, Mathura; BSA objection; representation dated 18.06.2025 left undecided; dismissal at threshold without adjudication on merits; no costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner, being a complainant and not an aggrieved party, has no locus to file the writ petition. ¶15

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14036 of 2025

¶2

Ram Singh

¶3

	Versus .....Petitioner(s)
State Of U.P. And 6 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Prashant Singh, Santosh Kumar Pandey : C.S.C., Udit Chandra

¶4

Court No. - 52

¶5

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Mr. Udit Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4&5 and perused on records.

¶7

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

¶8

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.4 (District Basic Education Officer, Mathura) to conduct / conclude the fair and impartial inquiry regarding the employment of respondent no.6&7 under dying in harness Rules, 1974.

¶9

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the application/representation of the petitioner dated 18.06.2025 pending before the respondents contained as (Annexure no.1 to this writ petition).

¶10

(iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order, direction as this Hon'ble Court, may deem just and proper under the circumstances of the present case.

¶11

(iv) To award the costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner."

¶12

At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents–BSA submits that the present petition, filed at the behest of the petitioner, is not maintainable, as the petitioner is merely a complainant and has no locus standi, not being an aggrieved party. The petitioner has only made a complaint challenging the appointments of respondent nos. 6 and 7 on compassionate grounds.

¶13

WRIA No. 14036 of 2025

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶17

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶18

September 17, 2025

¶19