Disposed¶21

Varsha Rawat v. Distt. Magistrate Distt. Pratapgarh and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2026WRIA/8822/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Aganbari Karyakatri appointment; Aganbari Kendra Namak Sayer; Bal Vikas Pariyojna Namak Sayer; Tehsil Raniganj; District Pratapgarh; mandamus; fresh representation; direction to decide representation within eight weeks; reasoned and speaking order; writ disposed of without merits adjudication; Distt. Magistrate; C.S.C.; Writ - A No. 8822 of 2025; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit a fresh representation before respondent no. 1 within two weeks; respondent no. 1 directed to consider and decide it within a further eight weeks by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law. ¶21

Varsha Rawat vs Distt. Magistrate Distt. Pratapgarh and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue commanding the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner on the post of Aganbari Karyakatri in Aganbari Kendra Namak Sayer, Bal Vikas Pariyojna Namak Sayer Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh. +1 more

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation before respondent no. 1 within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.

¶20

Key takeaways

Respondent no. 1 shall consider and decide the fresh representation within a further period of eight weeks thereafter, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Writ - A No. 8822 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Karunesh Singh Pawar, J., decision dated May 20, 2026) by Varsha Rawat against the Distt. Magistrate, Distt. Pratapgarh and 3 others, seeking mandamus (i) for appointment on the post of Aganbari Karyakatri in Aganbari Kendra Namak Sayer, Bal Vikas Pariyojna Namak Sayer, Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh, and (ii) for decision of the petitioner's representation contained in Annexure No. 3 by opposite party No. 1. After arguing for some time, counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would suffice if the petitioner were permitted to submit a fresh representation before respondent no. 1 with a direction to decide it within a stipulated period; learned Standing Counsel had no objection. Held: petitioner permitted to submit a fresh representation within two weeks; respondent no. 1 to consider and decide it within a further eight weeks thereafter by a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law; petition disposed of. No adjudication on the merits of the appointment claim; no statute or precedent cited.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 8822 of 2025

Varsha Rawat

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Distt. Magistrate Distt. Pratapgarh And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Kumar, Rama Shanker Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 18

¶10

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶12

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner prays for the following relief:-

¶13

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner on the post of Aganbari Karyakatri in Aganbari Kendra Namak Sayer, Bal Vikas Pariyojna Namak Sayer Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh.

¶14

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 1 to decide the representation of the petitioner contained in Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition.

¶15

(iii) Issue such other suitable writ, order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;"

¶16

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would suffice if the petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation raising his grievances before respondent no. 1, with a direction to decide the same within a stipulated period.

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶18

WRIA No. 8822 of 2025

¶19

¶20

In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation before respondent no. 1 within a period of two weeks from today. In the event such representation is submitted, respondent no. 1 shall consider and decide the same within a further period of eight weeks thereafter, by means of a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of.

¶22

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶23

May 20, 2026 R.C.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Varsha Rawat v. Distt. Magistrate Distt. Pratapgarh and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varsha Rawat v. Distt. Magistrate Distt. Pratapgarh and 3 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

Tej Bahadur Yadav ( PNO-192274991) vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Asif Naseem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Asif Naseem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Akash Baudh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Babloo @ Shera vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anu Tewatiya @ Prasant Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another