Disposed¶19

Shashank Kumar Nayak v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2025WRIA/1855/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, if so advised. ¶19

Shashank Kumar Nayak vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, if so advised.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner, who claims Scheduled Tribe status on the strength of a caste certificate issued in 2010, was wrongly treated as an Unreserved candidate in the recruitment pursuant to advertisement No. T/I/2024 dated 19.01.2024 after his caste certificate was cancelled (the cancellation allegedly later finally set aside). +1 more

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Since a subsequent event — the speaking order dated 13.02.2025 rejecting petitioner's representations — was confronted to petitioner during the hearing, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, if so advised.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Court No. 10 — WRIT - A No. - 1855 of 2025 (Shashank Kumar Nayak v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others); decided 18.2.2025 by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. Petitioner claimed Scheduled Tribe status on a caste certificate issued in 2010 and appeared as a reserved candidate in the recruitment pursuant to advertisement No. T/I/2024 dated 19.01.2024, but on declaration of result was put in the Unreserved category, after an inquiry conducted while he worked as Guest Faculty recorded cancellation of the certificate; petitioner maintained the cancellation was later finally set aside, though the document was apparently never placed before the respondents. His earlier writ (Writ-A No. 254 of 2025) was disposed of on 10.01.2025 with opportunity to submit supporting documents and a direction that the University would take a fresh decision on his representation. Instead, his representations dated 13.01.2025 and 20.01.2025 were rejected by a speaking order dated 13.02.2025, which also referred to an order dated 09.12.2024 recording recent cancellation of the caste certificate — an averment petitioner disputed as incorrect, counsel indicating petitioner would avail appropriate legal remedy. Confronted with this subsequent event during the hearing, the Court disposed of the present writ petition with liberty to petitioner to file afresh, if so advised. No statutory provision or precedent is cited in the judgment.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23021

¶2

Court No. - 10

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1855 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Shashank Kumar Nayak Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Mohan Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajan Upadhyay

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.M. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, Mrs. Shruti Malviya, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents and Sri Rajan Upadhyay, Advocate for Respondents-4 to 6.

¶7

Petitioner has earlier approached this Court on several occasions and lastly WritA No. 254 of 2025 filed by petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 10.01.2025. For reference said order is reproduced hereinafter:

¶8

“1. Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.M. Mishra and Sri Rajan Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondents.

¶9

Petitioner before this Court has claimed that he belongs to a Scheduled Tribe and for that he refers a caste certificate issued in the year 2010.

¶10

Learned Senior Advocate submits that on basis of said caste certificate, he appeared in recruitment process as reserved candidate in pursuance of an advertisement No. T/I/2024 dated 19.01.2024, however, when result was declared, he was put under Unreserved category which prejudiced his case since he was kept out of zone of consideration, but if he would grant benefit of Scheduled Tribe, he would have been in the select list.

¶11

Learned counsel for respondents submits that an inquiry was conducted when petitioner was working as a Guest Faculty and it was found that his caste certificate was cancelled and it was taken note and petitioner was put in Unreserved category.

¶12

Learned Senior Advocate, by referring certain documents, submits that said order of cancellation of caste certificate was later on finally set aside, however, it appears that petitioner has never placed such document before respondents.

¶13

In aforesaid circumstances, an opportunity is granted to petitioner to submit all documents in support of his claim that caste certificate issued in the year 2010 still

¶14

survives and on basis of representation and documents, the University will take a fresh decision and same will be communicated to petitioner within a short period as and when representation is filed.

¶15

Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations.”

¶16

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner submits that immediately after aforesaid order petitioner has filed a representation and according to his instructions no decision has been taken thereon by concerned respondent till date.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for Respondents-4 to 6 submits that representations dated 13.01.2025 and 20.01.2025 submitted by petitioner are considered and his claim has been rejected by a speaking order dated 13.02.2025 and a copy order is handed over to learned Senior Advocate for petitioner.

¶18

Learned Senior Advocate submits that in the said order a reference is made about order dated 09.12.2024 that petitioner’s caste certificate has been cancelled recently, which is not a correct averment. He fairly submits that he will take instruction from petitioner in this regard and will avail appropriate legal remedy as provided under law.

¶19

In view of above, since there is a subsequent event which has now been confronted to petitioner today, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to file a fresh, if so advised.

¶20

Order Date :- 18.2.2025 AK

¶21

Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Speaking order dated 13.02.2025 by which petitioner's representations dated 13.01.2025 and 20.01.2025 were considered and his claim (to Scheduled Tribe benefit in the recruitment) was rejected; a copy was handed over in court.¶17
University · 13.02.2025
Prior proceeding
Petitioner had earlier approached this Court on several occasions; lastly Writ-A No. 254 of 2025 was disposed of vide order dated 10.01.2025, which order is reproduced in the present judgment.¶7
Prior proceeding
As per the reproduced order, petitioner claimed before this Court that he belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, referring to a caste certificate issued in the year 2010.¶9
Prior proceeding
On the basis of the caste certificate petitioner appeared as a reserved candidate in the recruitment pursuant to advertisement No. T/I/2024 dated 19.01.2024, but on declaration of result he was put in the Unreserved category, keeping him out of the zone of consideration.¶10
Prior proceeding
An inquiry conducted while petitioner was working as a Guest Faculty found that his caste certificate had been cancelled; this was taken note of and he was put in the Unreserved category.¶11
Prior proceeding
According to petitioner, the order of cancellation of the caste certificate was later finally set aside, but it appears such document was never placed before the respondents.¶12
Prior proceeding
The order dated 10.01.2025 granted petitioner opportunity to submit all documents showing the 2010 caste certificate still survives, and directed that on the basis of the representation and documents the University would take a fresh decision and communicate it within a short period.¶14
Prior proceeding
Immediately after the order dated 10.01.2025, petitioner filed a representation; as per his instructions no decision had been taken thereon by the concerned respondent until the date of the present hearing.¶16
Prior proceeding
It emerged during the hearing that the speaking order dated 13.02.2025 makes reference to an order dated 09.12.2024 stating that petitioner's caste certificate has been cancelled recently; petitioner submitted this is not a correct averment and counsel indicated he would take instructions and avail appropriate legal remedy as provided under law.¶18

Shashank Kumar Nayak v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashank Kumar Nayak v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Madan Mohan Malviya Post Graduate College, Bhatpar Rani and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Babita Devi vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ashwani vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Subhash Panwar vs Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and 3 Others

Guddu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Maina Devi vs State of U.P.