Disposed¶20

Ram Prakash v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Service law – Promotion

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2025WRIA/17972/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Promotion to Sub-Inspector denied for pendency of criminal appeal against acquittal; acquittal dated 05.03.2025 in Case Crime No. 271 of 2013 (Sections 409 & 411 IPC, P.S. Pooranpur, Pilibhit); Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2025 dismissed 1.12.2025; order dated 22.09.2025 of DIG Karmik/Establishment, Lucknow set aside; remand for fresh order within two months; U.P. police service law; earlier WritA No. 10242 of 2025 disposed 23.7.2025; Allahabad High Court, Writ-A No. 17972 of 2025, Vikas Budhwar J., decided December 16, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.9.2025 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Karmik/Establishment, Lucknow, set aside; matter remitted to the authority to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law within two months. ¶20

Ram Prakash vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 17972 of 2025

Ram Prakash

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Munesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 34

¶8

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

¶9

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶10

On the oral request of learned counsel for the writ petitioner, he is permitted to correct the prayer clause, during the course of the day.

¶11

Heard Shri Munesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Shri Gaya Prasad Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶12

The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as a Police Constable on 15.06.1990 and, thereafter, he was promoted as Head Constable and he seeks promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector. However, owing to pendency of a case being Case Crime No. 271 of 2013, under Sections 409 & 411 I.P.C. Police Station Pooranpur, District Pilibhit. However, the writ petitioner stood acquitted in the said criminal case on 05.03.2025, by the trial court. However, the claim of the writ petitioner for promotion has not been considered. However, on 24.10.2024, an order came to be passed negating the claim of the writ petitioner for promotion as such the writ petitioner preferred WritA No. 10242 of 2025 (Ram Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and others), which came to be disposed of on 23.7.2025, requiring the respondents to consider the claim of the writ petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the order impugned came to be passed on 22.09.2025 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lucknow, negating the claim of the writ petitioner on the premise that already a criminal appeal against the acquittal order has been preferred, which is pending.

¶13

WRIA No. 17972 of 2025

¶14

¶15

Questioning the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred.

¶16

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the impugned order cannot be sustained particularly when mere pendency of a criminal appeal against the order of acquittal would not dilute the rigour and the impact of the acquittal. He further submits that now the said criminal appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2025 (State of U.P. Vs. HCP-Ram Prakash Yadav) has been dismissed on 1.12.2025 by Special Judge SC/ST Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No. 2, Pilibhit. Thus, now there remains no legal impediment.

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the order impugned proceeds on the assumption that criminal appeal is pending, but since according to the writ petitioner, the criminal appeal has been dismissed, thus the matter needs to be revisited.

¶18

I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record. Facts are not in issue. It is not in issue that the writ petitioner seeks claim for promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector from the post of Head Constable. The only legal impediment was a pendency of a criminal appeal, which now stands rejected, as claimed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner.

¶19

Be that as it may, now the matter needs to be revisited. Accordingly, the order dated 22.9.2025 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Karmik/Establishment, Lucknow, is set aside. Matter stands remitted back to the authority to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months.

¶20

With the said observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.

¶21

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶22

December 16, 2025

¶23

Anurag/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Prakash v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prakash v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jiya Ram Verma vs Dr. Om Prakash Gupta, Deputy Director of Education, Ayodhya and Another

M/S Shiv Traders vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ashish Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil Kumar and 40 Others vs U.P. State Bridge Corporation Setu Bhawan Thru. Managing Director and 5 Others

Siyaram Nagar and 21 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 11 Others

Ashish Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others