Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37820 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6916 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ratnesh Kumar Trivedi And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Technical Education Lko. And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Umesh Chandra Shukla,Krishna Madhav Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Ms. Maria Fatima, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2, 3 & 4 whose power filed today is taken on record. 2. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite parties no.5 to 11 stands dispensed with. 3. Petition has been filed challenging selection of opposite parties no. 5 to 11 on the post of Instructor in pursuance of advertisement dated 18.01.2022. Further prayer for a direction to concerned authority to declare petitioners successful on the post of Instructor have also been sought. 4. Learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 to 4 has been raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition on the ground that a simple prayer for quashing of selection of private opposite parties has been sought without any prayer for quashing of select list. It is further submitted that only general allegations have been levelled in the petition that the opposite parties no. 5 to 11 have been provided appointment on the basis of forged experience certificates but there is no corroboratory evidence even on a prima facie basis which supports any such allegation. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner in rebuttal thereto submits that such an aspect is clearly brought out in the letter dated 24.04.2025 which is a complaint submitted by one Gaurav Sharma to the U.P. Sub-ordinate Services Selection Board, which clearly indicates the aspect that the qualifications indicated of opposite parties no. 5 to 11 are overlapping and could not have been granted in regular classes simultaneously. It is further submitted that petitioners have not been able to produce any particular documents to establish forgery of certificates of petitioners since such information being private in nature would not be made available to petitioners even under Right to Information Act, 2005. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that selection of opposite parties no. 5 to 11 has been challenged primarily on the ground that they have submitted forged experience certificates. It is evident from the record that except for a general allegation, there is no corroboratory evidence brought on record to substantiate such a plea. The letter dated 25.04.2025 which has been relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners appears to be a complaint made by one Gaurav Sharma who is not a party to the present proceedings. The said document being only the nature of a complaint, cannot be construed to be a corroboratory evidence to even for prima facie establishment of allegations levelled in the petition. Petitioners have not been made any endeavor to bring on record any substantive document to corroborate the allegations so made in the petition. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, selection of opposite parties no. 5 to 11 cannot be kept under threat merely on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. 8. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their on cost. Order Date :- 4.7.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench