Dismissed¶14

Gaurav Singh v. State of Up and 3 Others

Writ petition (WRIT – A) against order dated 15.04.2026

Allahabad HC5 May 2026WRIA/6228/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, WRIT - A No. 6228 of 2026, Gaurav Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others, decided May 6, 2026 by Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.; challenge to order dated 15.04.2026; NOC from Competent Authority of earlier college; Authorized Controller managing day-to-day affairs; no pre-decisional hearing but no prejudice shown; Birendra Kumar Yadav 2026:AHC:95100 distinguished; writ petition dismissed with liberty to apply fresh for transfer.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; however, the dismissal will not come in the way of the petitioner applying afresh for transfer. ¶14

Gaurav Singh Vs State of Up and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; however, the dismissal will not come in the way of the petitioner applying afresh for transfer.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the reasons assigned in the impugned order dated 15.04.2026 — non-production of an NOC issued by the Competent Authority of the college where the petitioner was earlier working, and the Authorized Controller taking care of the day-to-day management of the college at the relevant time — are sustainable. +2 more

¶9

Court's answer

The reasons in the impugned order dated 15.04.2026 are sustainable: the petitioner could not show an NOC issued by the Competent Authority of the college where he was earlier working, and at the relevant time the Authorized Controller was taking care of the day-to-day management of the college — a fact not specifically denied either in the writ petition or during the course of hearing.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Although no opportunity was granted to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed, he suffered no prejudice because he failed to contradict the reasons assigned in the impugned order on the basis of the record.

¶10

Key takeaways

The Coordinate Bench decision in Birendra Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others, 2026:AHC:95100 does not assist the petitioner, since therein no merit of the reasons in the impugned order was considered, whereas the present order was passed after considering the merits of the impugned order.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - A) against order dated 15.04.2026 — Court upheld the reasons in the impugned order: petitioner failed to show an NOC issued by the Competent Authority of the college where he was earlier working, and at the relevant time the Authorized Controller was managing the college's day-to-day affairs, a fact not specifically denied in the writ petition or at hearing — though no opportunity of hearing preceded the order, no prejudice was caused as the petitioner failed to contradict the reasons on record — Coordinate Bench ruling in Birendra Kumar Yadav, 2026:AHC:95100 held unhelpful and distinguished since therein the merits of the reasons were not considered — writ petition dismissed with liberty to apply afresh for transfer.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 6228 of 2026

¶3

Gaurav Singh

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others
	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Satyendra Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Tripathi

¶6

Court No. - 32

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.

¶9

The Court finds that reasons assigned in impugned order dated 15.04.2026 are sustainable since petitioner is not able to show NOC issued by Competent Authority from College concerned where he was earlier working as well as that at the relevant time Authorized Controller was taking care of day-to-day management of College and said fact has not been denied specifically either in writ petition or during course of hearing.

¶10

Therefore, even no opportunity was granted to petitioner before impugned order was passed but it is not a case that petitioner is prejudice since he has failed to contradict the reasons assigned in impugned order on basis of record.

¶11

The Court finds that reference of an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this court in Birendra Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others, 2026:AHC:95100 will not be helpful to petitioner herein since therein no merit was considered so far as reasons assigned in impugned order, whereas present order is passed considering merit of impugned order in present case.

¶12

WRIA No. 6228 of 2026

¶13

¶14