MANJU DEVI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. REVENUE DEPTT. AND 4 OTHERS
WRIA/4253/2025 · 2025-04-21
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 135062 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 135062 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22459 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4253 of 2025 Petitioner :- Manju Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harshit Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Notice to respondent no. 5 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order. The petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- i) issue a writ, an order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the Opposite Parties particularly Opposite Parties particularly Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 to initiate the disciplinary proceeding against Opposite Party No.5 who has fraudulently manipulated her academic record to obtain employment (contained as Annexure No. 1), in the interest of justice. ii) issue a writ, an order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the Opposite Parties particularly Opposite Party No. 2 to decide the representation dated 02.04.2025 (Contained as Annexure No. -3), in the interest of justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a relative of respondent no. 5 and alleges that she has fraudulently manipulated her educational certificates to obtain employment. Accordingly, he seeks a direction to respondent no. 2 for disposal of his representation. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the petition submitting that the petitioner has no locus. Perused the record.
From perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of respondent no. 5 or to seek initiation of disciplinary proceedings against her. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate how he is aggrieved. It appears to be a petition by an envious relative who is disturbed by the appointment of opposite party no. 5. The petition appears to be utterly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.4.2025/R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench