HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9543 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2, Shri Subodh Kumar Verma is present. We confronted him with the directions issued by the Tribunal as contained in para no. 4 of the impugned judgment, as apparently, the directions are contradictory. On the one hand, the concerned opposite party before the Tribunal has been directed to consider and decide the representation of the applicant within a period of two months from the date of its receipt, in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order under intimation to the applicant and on the other, a further direction has been issued to them to declare the result of the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer (Telecom) in the Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to Telecom Engineering Service (Group B Post) under 25% quota held on 1.12.2002 in respect of the applicants. What if, while deciding the representation, the department comes to the conclusion that results are not required to be declared ? It would be faced with a piquant situation where there is another direction to declare the result without even recording any finding on merits as to why the result should be declared. At this stage, it is informed that a decision has already been taken by the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Yogesh Chandra Bhatt Counsel for Respondent(s) : Subodh Kumar Verma Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (Bsnl) Thru. Its Chairman-Cum Managing Director And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) Sri Krishn Charan And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) petitioner on the representation of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 on 11.06.2025, copy of which is annexed as annexure no. 7 to the writ petition holding that the result is not required to be declared. Counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2 says that he will challenge the said decision. Be that as it may, the direction to declare the result appears to be without any factual and legal basis and also incongruous to the earlier direction, therefore, to that extent the impugned judgment is quashed, without prejudice however, to the private opposite parties to challenge the decision taken in pursuance to the impugned judgment as rest of the judgment is not being interfered with. Writ petition is allowed in part. August 26, 2025 Ashish WRIA No. 9543 of 2025 2 (Manish Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench