Dismissed¶¶11

Km. Radha v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2025WRIA/17156/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Service-law writ (WRIT-A, Allahabad HC, 2025, single judge Prakash Padia) dismissed as infructuous after the suspending authority (District Basic Education Officer, Sambhal) took final decision on the 23.08.2025 suspension: reinstatement with back wages plus minor penalty (order of 06.11.2025) and fresh posting to another college (order of 07.11.2025). Relevant search terms: suspension order; District Basic Education Officer Sambhal; reinstatement; back wages (unquantified); minor penalty; infructuous writ petition; liberty to avail alternative remedy; supersession of pending challenge by supervisory final decision.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed as infructuous, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail remedies available in law if aggrieved by the orders of 06.11.2025 and 07.11.2025.

Km. Radha vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 17156 of 2025

¶3

Km. Radha

¶4

	Versus .....Petitioner(s)
State Of U.P. And 2 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Wahaj Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Nagendra Kumar Pandey

¶5

Court No. - 2

¶6

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶7

Order on suspension dated 23.08.2025 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Sambhal/ Respondent No.2 is under challenge.

¶8

Shri Nagendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of aforesaid Respondent placed before this Court the decision taken by the Respondent No.2 dated 06.11.2025 by which the final decision has been taken on the aforesaid suspension order and the petitioner was reinstated in service along-with back wages by imposing minor penalty upon the petitioner.

¶9

Subsequently vide order dated 07.11.2025 petitioner was allotted another college and the petitioner was directed to join the said college. Copies of the aforesaid orders have been provided to the counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

After going through the same, a prayer has been made by the counsel for the petitioner that present writ petition has become infructuous for all practical purposes.

¶11