Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 105254 (ALL)

SANJAY SINGH v. State of UP AND 4 OTHERS

WRIA/16651/2024 · 2025-01-31

Neeraj Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:14208 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16651 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sanjay Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gunjan Sharma,Namit Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Lal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Present petition has been filed with the following prayers" "i) Issue a writ,order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding/directing the Respondent No. 2 to finalize the selection of Panchayat Sahayak/Accountant-cum-Date Entry Operator of Gram Panchayat, Piparsandi, Block Bailghat, Gorakhpur by appointing the petitioner on the said post. ii) Issue a writ,order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding/directing the Respondent No. 2 to decide the objection raised by the petitioner against resolution dated 18.10.2022 passed by respondent No. 5 and appoint the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Sahayak/Accountant-cum-Date Entry Operator of Gram Panchayat, Piparsandi, Block Bailghat, Gorakhpur." 3. Pursuant to order dated 17.01.2025, learned Standing Counsel has produced instruction dated 24.01.2025, which is taken on record. 4. As per the instruction, selection process has been completed and now the appointment letter is to be issued. It is also informed that candidature of petitioner has been cancelled as his date of birth was found different 5. Once the candidature has been cancelled and the same is not under challenged, petitioner has no locus to maintain his prayer No. (i). 6. So far as prayer No. (ii) is concerned, being confronted by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate as to which objection of petitioner has not been decided and the same is also not part of writ petition, therefore, relief so prayed cannot be granted. 7. Under such facts of the case, writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 8. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 31.1.2025 ADY Digitally signed by :- AMAR DEEP YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad