Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 158329 (ALL)

PRAFULLA KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. DEPTT. OF PANCHAYATI RAJ LKO. AND 2 OTHERS

CMRAD/134/2025 · 2025-08-19

Manish Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48341 Court No. - 8 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 134 of 2025 Applicant :- Prafulla Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayati Raj Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Yadav,Archana Yadav,Sunil Kumar Maurya Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. Order on Application for condonation of delay 1. Heard learned counsel for Applicant. 2. Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay to challenge judgment and order dated 01.07.2025. 3. Reasons indicated in affidavit filed in support of application are sufficient and therefore delay in filing Review Application is condoned. Order in memo of Review Application 1. Heard learned counsel for Review-Applicant. 2. Review Application has been filed challenging judgment and order dated 01.07.2025 passed in Writ A No. - 6876 of 2025 whereby writ petition filed by petitioner challenging his deputation has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for Review-Applicant submits that this Court has erred in recording a finding that petitioner's consent with regard to deputation would be implied in terms of his appointment letter but has ignored the aspect that subsequently U.P. State Election Commission (Head Quarter) (Group 'C') Service Rules, 2015 were framed and as per which even though Rule 27 prescribes deputation, consent of petitioner would have been material in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kavi Raj and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 526. 4. From a perusal of judgment and order dated 01.07.2025 however it is evident that the aspects being raised in present Review-Application has already been considered in aforesaid impugned judgment. It is noticeable that the present petition is in the nature of Review and not Appeal and since the aspects indicated in the grounds have already been adjudicated upon in the judgment under challenge and there being no error apparent on the face of record, the Review Application is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench