Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 169615 (ALL)

SAURABH SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. REVENUE LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

/12142/2024 · 2025-01-27

Alok Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5195 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12142 of 2024 Petitioner :- Saurabh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anagh Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra,Utsav Mishra Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Anagh Misra, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 3, Shri Utsav Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, and perused the material available on record. 2. The grievance raised in the present writ petition is with regard to the selection to the post of Lekhpal where according to the petitioner he has participated and has found successful but the appointment letter has not been issued to him. 3. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Lekhpal in terms of select list dated 30.12.2023 and an apprehension was further expressed in the writ petition that the respondents have directed to grant equivalence to the Uttar Pradesh Board Diploma and deny equivalence to the Haryana Board Diploma but fairly submitted that no orders in this regard have been passed and therefore have not been assailed in the present writ petition. 4. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court had called upon the respondent no. 2 to inform this Court about the reasons for non issuance of the appointment letter to the petitioner despite the fact that other selected candidates have already been issued the appointment letter. 5. Shrii Utsav Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has produced before this Court the written instructions from the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Lucknow and has also produced a letter dated 24.01.2025 addressed to the petitioner. 6. From the said letter, it seems that the diploma, which was submitted by the petitioner was subject matter of scrutiny from the Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, (The Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh) and to clarify certain aspects pertaining to the said documents, the petitioner has been called upon for a personal hearing before respondent no. 2 on 31.01.2025 at 10:00 a.m. A copy of the letter dated 24.01.2025 has been handed over to the petitioner. 7. From the aforesaid, it seems that there is some infirmity in the documents submitted by the petitioner, which has come to the notice of the respondents and accordingly, the petitioner has been called upon to clarify the said position. 8. In light of the fact that the petitioner has been called for a personal hearing on 31.01.2025 at 10:00 a.m., therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to enter into the merits of the grievance raised by the petitioner, according to which, are mere apprehension till the same are duly considered an effective order/determination made in this regard. 9. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Lucknow has called the petitioner for personal hearing where the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the points in his defence regarding the validity document submitted by him and the respondents on the other hand, would be under a mandate to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order in this regard. 10. It is made clear that in case any adverse order is passed, the petitioner would have a liberty to approach the appropriate forum. 11. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Lucknow on the date fixed. Needless to say that the petitioner shall provide him an adequate opportunity of hearing before concluding the proceedings. 12. In the case the petitioner presents himself on the date fixed, and does not seek any further adjournment, the respondents shall pass necessary orders with expedition no latter than three weeks from the date of hearing. 13. With the aforesaid observations/directions this petition is disposed of. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench