SHOBHA RATHOUR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND NUTRITION AND 6 OTHERS
SPLAD/388/2025 · 2025-09-25
Prashant Kumar, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 166567 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 166567 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 388 of 2025 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.
Order on Application seeking Leave to Appeal
1. Heard Sri Neelu Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Risabh Triapthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This is an application for seeking relief by a candidate who was placed at serial no.1 of the selection based on which the respondent-petitioner was appointed and subsequently the said person who is the appellant herein filed a complaint against the respondent. The respondent was appointed as 'Aganbari Karykarti' and joined the said post on 18-03-2025. Thereafter, the appellant herein filed a writ petition wherein some interim
order was passed on 09-04-2025 to the effect that until further orders no appointment shall be made on the post in question without leave of the Court. However, by then the appointment and joining of the respondent had already taken place. The services/contract as the case may be of the respondent were terminated vide order dated 19-04-2025 on the ground that she had incorrectly shown her income, which infact was above Rs. 46,000/-, meaning thereby she was ineligible on the basis of income criteria for such appointment. Accordingly, it was quashed. However, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition and quashed the said
order on the ground that the contract could not have been terminated without an opportunity of hearing. He has granted liberty to opposite parties to proceed afresh as per law. The applicant/ appellant is not a party before the Writ Court. He is the complainant.
3. We see no reason to grant leave to appeal to the appellant nor to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Let the opposite parties comply the said judgment. Issue show-cause notice to the respondent and then take such actions as may be required in accordance Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Neelu Singh Chauhan, Pankaj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shobha Rathour .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Child Development And Nutrition And 6 Others .....Respondent(s)
with law in terms of the judgment dated 29-07-2025 passed in Writ-A No. 8352 of 2025.
3. Leave to appeal is dismissed.
Order on Special Appeal
4. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. September 25, 2025 pks SPLAD No. 388 of 2025 2 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench