Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15949 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26385 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy Secondary Education Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- R.S.Dwivedi,Neelam Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sachin Srivastava Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri R. S. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rishab Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Sachin Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party No.6. 2. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.7. 3. By means of this petition, petitioner has prayed following reliefs: (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto for a removing the opposite party No.7 from the post of Assistant Teacher because he has not possess requisite qualification of the post. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the opposite party Nos. 3, 4 & 6 to take suitable action on the basis of letter dated 05.02.2011 issued by D.M. Shrawasti then. 4. At the very outset, Sri Sachin Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party No.6 has informed that the opposite party No.7 is no more in service. 5. On being asked from learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the writ of quo warranto would be maintainable against opposite party No.7, who was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Kisan Inter College, Lakshman Nagar, District Shrawasti, learned counsel for the petitioner could not justify his locus challenging the appointment of opposite party No.7 on the post of Assistant Teacher. 6. In the entire writ petition, there is no averment in respect of locus of the present petitioner filing writ of quo warranto against opposite party No.7. 7. Attention has been drawn towards some correspondences wherein the competent authorities of the education department have indicated that the necessary action would be taken against opposite party No.7. 8. Be that as it may, this Court is not concerned about those correspondences, inasmuch as, the competent authorities of the education department may take appropriate steps against any erring employee strictly in accordance with law but this writ petition being a writ in the nature of quo warranto has been sought without indicating the locus of the petitioner and the prayer has been prayed for removal of opposite party No.7 and also a prayer has been sought to direct the opposite party Nos. 3, 4 & 6 to take suitable action against opposite party No.7 pursuant to the letter dated 05.02.2011 issued by the District Magistrate, Shrawasti, I am of the view that on such vague prayer without supporting the legal submission thereof, the writ of quo warranto may not be maintained. Besides the opposite party No.7 is no more in service, therefore, this petition is misconceived. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench