Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46940-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7345 of 2025 Petitioner :- Hausila Prasad Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vaibhav Mishra,Shubham Katiyar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastaba, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Quo-warranto thereby commanding the opposite party no. 5 (i.e. Harishchandra Pandey) to vacate the post of Principal of Azad Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Harpur, Akhandnagar, District Sultanpur in view of the fact that the experience certificate submitted by the opposite party no. 5 for appointment on the above post, is a fake certificate ; (ii). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite party no.2 (i.e. director, Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh) and the opposite party no.3 (i.e. Assistant Education Director (Basic), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya) to conclude the inquiry/investigation which has been going on for the last two years and take necessary action against the opposite party no. 5 as per the rules and on the basis of inquiry report ; (iii). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party no. 2 and 3 to decide the application/representation dated 16.07.2025 sent by the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order." 3. Learned Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition by placing reliance upon judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.24229 (MB) of 2019 (Dr. Neetu Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 05.09.2019 Neutral Citation No.-2019 : AHC-LKO : 28384-DB, wherein the petitioner had challenged the appointment of one Doctor Shailendra Saxena who was working as Professor in the Department of Centre for Advanced Research (Molecular Biology) in King George's Medical University. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has specifically pointed out paragraph Nos.15 to 19 of the judgment where by placing reliance upon the definition of 'Public Office' as given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the Division Bench had held that every governmental function need not be 'Sovereign' function. The mere fact that one is an employee of a statutory body would not ipso facto mean that the function exercised by such employee is 'Sovereign' in nature and the post of Professor of King George's Medical University cannot be held to be a 'Public Office' merely because the University is imparting Education and is a Statutory Body enacted under the Act of the State Legislature. Office of Professor does not seem to involve an obligation of any of the sovereign functions of the Government either Executive or Legislative or Judicial for public benefit. 5. The petitioner herein has challenged the appointment of a Principal of A Grade School. 6. We do not find the writ petition to be maintainable. It is dismissed as such. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Pks Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench