Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20808 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3747 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pratima Bharti Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Basic Education) Deptt. Of Basic Education Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Priya Singh,Sharad Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prashant Kumar Singh,Ran Vijay Singh Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard. 2. This Court has passed the order dated 08.04.2025, which reads as under:- "Heard Ms. Priya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ravi Swaroop Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties no. 1, 2 and 4, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel has appeared for opposite party no.3 i.e. Secretary, Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, U.P. and Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel has appeared for opposite party no.5. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed the following relief:- "(i) ISSUE a writ of certiorari quashing the Office Order dated 16.102024, contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. (ii) ISSUE a writ of certiorari quashing the Office Order dated 28.03.2021, so far as it relates to the present petitioner contained as Annexure No.17 to the writ petition. (iii) To issue order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opp-Party No.1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 to forthwith reinstate the petitioner as Assistant Teacher and release her regular salary every month, along with arrear of salary w.e.f 05.12.2020 (the date of initial appointment, with all consequential benefits, including seniority, etc.)." Ms. Priya Singh has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure no.1 wherein it has been categorically indicated that the petitioner is not in state of 'Advantage' inasmuch as she has not misled the department apprising her marks in any manner whatsoever. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have also stated that the aforesaid order dated 16.10.2024 ( Annexure No.1) is not against the petitioner, rather the same is supporting her. Further, attention has been drawn of this Court towards Annexure no.28 which is an order dated 22.04.2024 passed by this Court in case of the present petitioner directing the concerning authority to consider and dispose of the issue of the petitioner in the light of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rahul Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition (Civil) No.378 of 2021). When appropriate decision has not been taken by the competent authority in favour of the petitioner in the light of Rahul Kumar (supra), she filed contempt petition. In the contempt petition, copy of the order dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure no.1) was placed. Considering that order, the contempt petition was disposed of finally. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in the light of judgement of Rahul Kumar (supra) the benefit has been given to identically placed persons, namely, Ms. Surabhi Pandey daughter of Indra Prakash Pandey by passing an order dated 07.11.2024 ( Annexure no.31). Not only the above, one more order has been passed on 12.03.2025 in favour of one Ms. Upasana daughter of Pramod Kumar providing the benefit of judgement of Rahul Kumar (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that similar orders have been passed in favour of several persons and those orders have been enclosed in the present writ petition. Ms. Priya Singh has shown a copy of an order dated 25.01.2025 passed by the same authority, who has passed the order dated 16.10.2024 in a case of Ms. Upasana. Later on, the order dated 12.03.2025 has been passed in favour of Upasana. Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.3, Secretary, Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, U.P. prays for and is granted two days' time to seek complete instructions in the matter and if any order is passed by the competent authority in the meantime, the same may be shown to the Court. List/put up this case on 11.04.2025 as fresh in the list of fresh cases." 3. Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 has stated on the basis of specific instructions that the opposite party No.3 shall revisit the impugned order dated 16.10.2024. 4. Having considered the aforesaid submission of Sri Ran Vijay Singh, I am of the view that since the opposite party No.3 is willing to revisit the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure No.1), it means that he is withdrawing the aforesaid impugned order. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 shall be treated as non est in the eyes of law and the authority concerned may revisit the aforesaid order by passing a speaking and reasoned order, if it is so required, but strictly in accordance with law with expedition preferably within a period of ten days from today. 6. Since the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 has become non est in the eyes of law, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for all consequential benefits. 7. The writ petition is allowed in view of the aforesaid terms. 8. No order as to cost. [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Suresh/ Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench