Disposed¶20

Satendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Appointment Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2025WRIA/9835/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cinema Operator appointment (SC/ST seats), advertisement 23Exam/2016; petitioner alleged incorrect exclusion from select list despite higher marks than last selected candidate; petition disposed of for want of documentary evidence; liberty reserved to re-file with documents. WRIT - A No. 9835 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow, Manish Mathur, J., decided 02-09-2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions reserving to the petitioner the right to approach the Court afresh with all relevant pleadings and evidence should the necessary documents subsequently become available; neither quashing of the result nor appointment was effected at this stage. ¶20

Satendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Appointment Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was incorrectly excluded from the select list for appointment on the post of Cinema Operator (SC/ST seats, advertisement 23Exam/2016) despite having obtained more marks than the last selected candidate.

¶12

Court's answer

On consideration of the submissions and the material on record, the petitioner was unable to substantiate by any documentary evidence that he obtained more marks than the last selected candidate.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

It was open to the petitioner to obtain the necessary documents through the means available and only thereafter present the petition before the Court with all the relevant documents.

¶18

Key takeaways

If the relevant documents subsequently become available to the petitioner, he shall have the right to approach this Court again with all the relevant pleadings and evidence on record.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - A No. 9835 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow; Manish Mathur, J.; decided September 2, 2025). Petitioner Satendra Kumar sought quashing of the result dated 28.07.2025 for appointment to the post of Cinema Operator against SC/ST seats pursuant to advertisement 23Exam/2016, contending he had been incorrectly excluded from the select list despite obtaining more marks than the last selected candidate, and further prayed for his appointment on the said post. Held: upon consideration of the submissions and the record, the petitioner did not substantiate by any documentary evidence that he had obtained more marks than the last selected candidate; it was open to him to first procure the necessary documents and then approach the Court with all relevant material. Petition disposed of, with liberty reserved to re-approach the Court with complete pleadings and evidence if such documents later become available.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 9835 of 2025

Satendra Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Appointment Lko. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mayank Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 8

¶9

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel for opposite parties no.1, 4 & 5 while power on behalf of opposite party no.2 & 3 has been filed by Ms. Maria Fatima, Advocate, which is taken on record.

¶11

Petition has been filed seeking quashing of result dated 28.07.2025 with regard to appointment on the post of Cinema Operator against SC/ST seats pursuant to advertisement 23Exam/2016. Further prayer for appointment of petitioner on the said post has also been made.

¶12

Primary gist of submissions of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner has been incorrectly excluded from the select list although he obtained more marks than the last selected candidate.

¶13

Learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 & 3 however has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that there is no arbitrariness in publishing of the select list since persons have been selected in order of merit.

¶14

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is evident that petitioner has not been able to substantiate by any documentary evidence the aspect that he obtained more marks than the last

¶15

WRIA No. 9835 of 2025

¶16

¶17

selected candidate.

¶18

In such circumstances, it could have been open for the petitioner to obtain necessary documents through the means available and then only to present the petition before this Court with all the relevant documents.

¶19

In case such documents are available with the petitioner subsequently, he shall have a right to approach this Court again with all the relevant pleadings and evidence on record.

¶20

With the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of .

¶21

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶22

September 2, 2025

¶23

Subodh/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Appointment Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Appointment Lko. and 4 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

Si (M) Santosh Kumar Pandey Pno. No. 962460616 and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Si M Tej Veer Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Lucknow and Ors.

Ex. Asim Ashok Kumar Singh PNO.841070053 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Ors.

Bhanu Prakash Shukla and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Anand Kumar Divedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Awaiz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Work Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others