Jag Prasad Dubey vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J.N. Maurya, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶12

The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

¶13

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 16.10.2025 issued by respondent no.4 to the extent it fixes the date for the typing test for promotion of Class-IV employees to the post of Clerk on 20.11.2025.

¶14

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant a year time or at least six months' time to the petitioner for appearing in the typing test for promotion to clerical grade under the Government Orders dated 31.05.2013 and 21.01.2016."

¶15

At the very outset, learned Counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4 submits that the petition is against a notice, which is not maintainable.

¶16

It is settled law that writ petition against a show cause notice is not maintainable. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma reported in (1987) 2 SCC 179 it was held by the Apex Court that writ petition against show cause notice is not maintainable. Relevant part of the said case is as under:-

¶17

"The High Court was not justified in quashing the show cause notice. When a show cause notice is issued to a government servant under a statutory provision calling

¶18

WRIA No. 17364 of 2025

¶19

2

¶20

upon him to show cause, ordinarily the government servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the court before that stage would be premature, the High Court in our opinion ought not have interfered with the show cause notice."

¶21

In the case of Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh (1996) 1 SCC 327 it was also held as under:-

¶22

"... for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a show-cause notice ... it should be shown that the authority has no power or jurisdiction, to enter upon the enquiry in question . In all other cases, it is only appropriate that the party should avail of the alternate remedy and show cause against the same before the authority concerned."

¶23

In the case of Special Director Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440 the Apex Court held as under:

¶24

"This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice was totally non est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. " (emphasis added)

¶25

In the case of Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in AIR 2007 SC 906 , the Apex Court after referring to State of U.P. Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma (supra), Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh (supra) and Special Director and another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another (supra) said as

¶26

WRIA No. 17364 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

follows: -

¶29

"It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice ... The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet." (emphasis added)

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned show cause notice dated 16.10.2025

¶32

Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed .

¶33

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶34

November 19, 2025 Rahul.

¶35

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jag Prasad Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jag Prasad Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Urmila Devi vs State of U.P.

Satyaveer Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Kalpana Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shanti Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar vs the State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash vs State of U.P. and Another