Dismissed¶19

Ajay Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2025WRIA/17278/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; WRIT - A No. 17278 of 2025; Ajay Kumar vs State of U.P.; suspension order 04.10.2024 corrected 12.11.2024; District Basic Education Officer Mirzapur; services declared VOID AB INITIO by final order 14.11.2025; writ dismissed as infructuous; liberty reserved to challenge final order before appropriate forum; basic education department; Uttar Pradesh.

What did the court decide?

Having regard to the facts that the writ petition was filed only against the order of suspension and that a final decision declaring the petitioner's services void ab initio had since been taken by the authorities, the writ petition had become infructuous and was accordingly dismissed. ¶19

Ajay Kumar vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 17278 of 2025

Ajay Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 6 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Vikram Bahadur Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Dubey

¶9

Court No. - 2

¶10

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶11

Order of suspension dated 04.10.2024 as corrected on 12.11.2024 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, District Mirzapur is under challenge.

¶12

Shri Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur placed before this Court instructions dated 15.11.2025, the same is taken on record.

¶13

Though it is stated in the aforesaid instructions that vide order dated 14.11.2025 services of the petitioner was declared as VOID AB INITIO. It is unfortunate that while providing instructions, only written comments were provided by the authorities and though in the written comments there is a reference of enclosures (total 37) but none of enclosures have been appended along-with instructions.

¶14

From perusal of the last paragraph of instructions, it transpires that after the order of suspension was passed against the petitioner, a final decision has been taken by the Respondent No.3 on 14.11.2025 by which the services of the petitioner was declared Void Ab Initio.

¶15

After going through aforesaid facts, it is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that no relief could be granted to the petitioner, insofar as the present writ petition is concerned, since the writ petition has been filed only against the order of suspension and now a final decision has already been taken by the authorities against the petitioner.

¶16

WRIA No. 17278 of 2025

¶17

¶18

In this view of the matter, a prayer has been made by the counsel for the petitioner to dismiss the present writ petition as having become infructuous.

¶19