Brajesh Kumar Khanna and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 2 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
Ad hoc versus officiating service counted for promotion; Consolidation Lekhpal; Consolidator; Assistant Consolidation Officer (A.C.O) promotion with seniority and consequential benefits; quashing (certiorari) of Respondent No. 3 order dated 10.12.2025; mandamus to consider promotion in accordance with law; leading case Deva Nand Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, Writ-A No. 12815 of 2025, followed — term “officiating” read as “ad hoc”; State of U.P., Deptt. of Revenue (Consolidation establishment); petitioners Brajesh Kumar Khanna, Ashok Kumar, Ajay Kumar Mishra; counsel Abhineet Jaiswal and Shreya Jaiswal for petitioners, C.S.C. for respondents; WRIT - A No. - 2978 of 2026, Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Court No. 18, Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar, delivered 11.05.2026.
What did the court decide?
Petition allowed in terms of the judgment in Deva Nand Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and 2 others (Writ-A No. 12815 of 2025): impugned order dated 10.12.2025 set aside; mandamus issued to respondent No. 3 to consider petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Consolidation Officer in accordance with law. For orders see order of even date in the leading writ petition.