2025:AHC:83797 Reserved :- 13/05/2025 Delivered :- 20/05/2025 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 48927 of 2017 Petitioner :- Radha Mohan Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Gour,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Yadav,C.S.C.,Hridai Narain Pandey,Sharad Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri A.B.L. Gaur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Akhilesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A.K. Nagvanshi, Additional C.S.C. along with Sri Mewa Lal Gupta, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Hridai Narain Pandey, learned counsel for respondents. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court after working as Assistant Teacher since 1998 at Gram Vikas Junior High School, Hayatpur, Mathura and must have attained age of superannuation during pendency of this writ petition as in the year 2017, he was 56 years old. 3. Strangely, petitioner by way of present writ petition has challenged appointment of respondent-5 as Head Master in same school and prays that his appointment letter dated 08.07.2003 be quashed. 4. Respondent-5 has already worked for more than 2 decades on basis of said appointment. It is not on record that why petitioner was so prejudiced that he has to challenge the appointment of respondent-5 specifically when he made complaint for the first time in the year 2017 i.e. after more than 14 years of his appointment. 5. Learned Senior Advocate has submitted that respondent-5 was not qualified for appointment of Head Master since his experience certificate was forged and he has referred some inquiry reports in this regard. 6. Learned counsel for respondent-5 has supported the appointment that his experience certificate was not forged. 7. I have considered above submissions and I am of considered view that petitioner has made a complaint against appointment of respondent-5 after about 14 years and since said respondent has already worked for more than 20 years after his appointment. Presently said respondent is aged about 50 years i.e. about 10/12 years of service is left which is also a factor which goes in favour of respondent-5 and against the petitioner. Even it is considered that his experience certificate was not genuine or if genuine but not issued by the competent school, still considering that said respondent was otherwise qualified and has also attended qualifications after his appointment, therefore, at this stage, to unsuit him would be against the interest of justice. 8. In aforesaid circumstances, taking note of Radhey Shyam Yadav and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 INSC 7 also, challenge of petitioner against appointment of respondent-5 has no legal basis, therefore, this writ petition lacks merit, hence, dismissed. Order Date :- May 20, 2025 Sinha_N. [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.] 2 Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad