HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15825 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri B.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The writ petitioner had earlier approached this Court while filing Writ-A No.5284 of 2023, Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P, which came to be decided on 05.04.2023, order whereof is quoted herein: "Heard Sri B.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anoop Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief:- "i. Issue writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's appointment/absorption against the vacant post of Audiometric Assistant/Audiometrist in Maharshi Vashishtha Swashasi Rajya Chikitsalaya Mahavidyalaya Basti. ii. Issue writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus allowing the petitioner to work on the post of Audiometric Assistant/Audiometrist in Maharshi Vashishtha Swashasi Rajya Chikitsalaya Mahavidyalaya Basti and pay the salary." It is the case of the petitioner that he has already been inducted in the Department of Medical and Health for rendering his service as an Audiometric Assistant/Audiometrist in Maharshi Vashishtha Swashasi Rajya Chikitsalaya Mahavidyalaya, Basti through an agency who has been allocated to task to provide man power for the different posts as per the minimum eligibility criteria fixed by the selecting body and the same has been arrayed as respondent no.8 in the present petition. The engagement of the petitioner was for the District Hospital, Basti and when the same has been converted in the Medical College and Hospital, Basti, process of fresh appointment over the certain posts has been taken place wherein the eligibility criteria has been fixed up by the Committee headed by the District Magistrate i.e. the respondent no.5, sofar as the efficiency criteria of the particular aspirants are Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : B.S. Pandey, Kartikey Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Om Prakash .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) concerned, it is the Chief Medical Superintendent who is Head of the Committee but overall engagement shall be subject to approval of the respondent no.5. The claim of the petitioner has been put forward by the respondent no.8 on the basis of acquired minimum eligibility criteria as fixed by the Zila Swasthya Samiti headed by the respondent no.5, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the petition but in spite of the that, same has not been considered, the vital aspect which was remained to be considered that the petitioner has already been rendering his services over the same post for the last more than five years. The post on which the petitioner was rendering his services, is vacant and no fresh engagement has been finalized by the respondent no.5 and as such, order and direction in the nature of mandamus has been sought through the instant petition for considering the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Audiometric Assistant/Audiometrist in Maharshi Vashishtha Swashasi Rajya Chikitsalaya Mahavidyalaya, Basti. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition and apprised that the entire engagement as confirmed by the respondent no.5, has already been taken place and the responsible candidates who have been finalized after examining their minimum eligibility criteria as fixed by the Committee are already inducted, sofar as the petitioner is concerned, he has been considered but his claim is not sustainable since the same has been rejected on the ground which has been taken in the consideration by the competent authority constituted under the policy and the extent rules available for induction of the employer through the specified agency i.e. respondent no.8. Be that as it may, considering the experience and other eligibility criteria as fulfilled by the petitioner and if the post is still vacant, the claim of the petitioner may be reconsidered by the respondent no.5 so that the medical facility as prevailing in the Medical College and Hospital at Basti may not be hampered and the claim as set out by the petitioner may be adjudicated and finalized to logical end. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the respondent no.5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of." 3. Grievance of the writ petitioner is that though the writ petitioner who had earlier worked from 09.12.2017 to 02.07.2022 and thereafter, his renewal was not done and he has now been assigned job on 04.05.2023, but the increments adding services undergone by the writ petitioner have not been taken into account for the payment of increments. 4. Prayer in the present writ petition is for a direction to include / merge the annual increment extended between 2019 to 2022 into annual increment of 2023-24. WRIA No. 15825 of 2025 2 5. Sri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the claim of the writ petitioner is to be decided by Respondent no.3, Chief Medical Officer, Basti, at the first instance. 6. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with self attested copy of the writ petition and the certified copy of the order before Respondent no.3 by 07.11.2025, who shall on the said motion proceed to consider the claim of the writ petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter. October 29, 2025 N.S.Rathour WRIA No. 15825 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad