MUKESH KUMAR RAIKAWAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU SECY. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION and ORS.
WRIA/20147/2002 · 2026-05-11
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
body2002
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2002 DAILYLAW 1971 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2002 DAILYLAW 1971 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 20147 of 2002 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Jawahar Lal Dube, Advocate holding brief of Sri Piyush Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.
2. This writ petition was filed in the year 2002 against order dated 30.04.2002 whereby petitioner’s appointment against a short term vacancy was cancelled.
3. In the present case, this Court has passed an interim order dated 22.11.2002 whereby impugned order was stayed and present writ petition was connected with Writ Petition No. 44363 of 2002.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner thereafter has worked under the strength of interim order and is still working.
5. The Court takes note that this writ petition was dismissed in default vide order dated 13.07.2018, however, it was restored after about five years vide order dated 24.07.2023. It is not on record whether there was any break in service or not. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jai Singh Parihar, Kaushelendra Kumar, Piyush Kumar Shukla, Rajendra Kumar Mishra, S.J.Shandilya, V.Shandilya, Vinay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., R.P.Tiwari Mukesh Kumar Raikawar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Ministry Of Education And Ors. .....Respondent(s)
6. The Court also takes note that connected Writ Petition No. 44363 of 2002 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.08.2013.
7. In aforesaid circumstances, since petitioner has already enjoyed interim
order for about more than two decades, therefore, at this belated stage to pass any adverse order would be against the interest of justice.
8. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of interim
order. However, it is made clear that in case there was any break in service of petitioner, concerned respondent is at liberty to pass an order by the putting petitioner on a prior notice. May 12, 2026 AK WRIA No. 20147 of 2002 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad