Dismissed¶15

Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC4 May 2026WRIA/6019/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed as premature; petitioner failed to respond to compliance order dated 17.02.2026 calling for educational documents for conclusion of inquiry; earlier writ Writ A No.13959 of 2019 had quashed cancellation of appointment and withholding of salary with direction to pass appropriate orders; respondents permitted to conclude inquiry within two months; none appeared for petitioner on revised call; State of U.P.; basic education; Allahabad High Court; Manju Rani Chauhan, J.; decided May 5, 2026.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is premature because the petitioner filed it instead of responding to the order dated 17.02.2026 calling upon him to place his educational documents for conclusion of the inquiry. ¶14

Sanjay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 6019 of 2026

Sanjay Kumar Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

¶7

	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ashish Malhotra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi), C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 52

¶9

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶10

List revised. None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

¶11

On 27.04.2026, when the case was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner also not appeared even in the revised call.

¶12

Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 5 and perused the record.

¶13

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by means of filing Writ A No.13959 of 2019 (Sanjay Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. Thru. Special Secy. Basic Education And Ors.), wherein the impugned orders related to cancellation of appointment, withholding of salary, and other consequential orders were quashed, however, the respondents were directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶14

In compliance with the aforesaid directions, an order dated 17.02.2026 has been passed calling for the petitioner to place all the educational documents at the earliest so that the inquiry may be concluded within stipulated period. However, instead of responding to the aforesaid, the petitioner has filed the present petition, which is premature.

¶15

In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶16

The respondents shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and conclude the inquiry within a period of two months from today.

¶17

May 5, 2026 Rahul.

¶18

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶19

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

Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Archana Richhariya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sahab Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sarita Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Satisharan Pal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sushil Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vinita Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others