PRABHAKAR TRIPATHI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. DEPTT. OF APPOINTMENT, LKO. AND 3 OTHERS
WRIA/13150/2025 · 2025-11-13
Manish Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 173180 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 173180 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13150 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner(s), learned State counsel for opposite parties no.1 & 4 and Mr. R. K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 & 3. 2. The present petition has been filed seeking the following main reliefs:-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to fix the cut-off date for Upper Age Limit to be 01.07.2024 by substituting to the same i.e. 01.07.2025 to the advertisement issued vide Advertisement No.A-8/E-1/2025 dated 16.09.2025 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Prosecution Officers for the vacancies relates to recruitment year 1st July, 2024 to 30.06.2025 treating the said advertisement to be issued on or before
30.06.2025. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to accept the application of petitioners for Assistant Prosecution Examination-2025 and allow them to appear in the examination, with all consequential benefits."
3. It is submitted that requisition for 67 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officers was sent by State Government on 10.09.2024/23.12.2024 and for further 115 posts on 23.01.2025 for the vacancies arising in the year 2024-25. It is submitted that since requisition was received much prior to 30.06.2025, Upper Age Limit for persons to apply for recruitment of the said post was required to be as per the year of vacancy and not as per year and date of advertisement. It is submitted that due to delay on the part of issuance of advertisement at the end of Commission, the petitioner(s) stood excluded due to being over age despite the fact that vacancies were Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kamal Kishor Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya) Prabhakar Tripathi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Appointment, Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
for the year 2024-25. 4. It is submitted that in similar circumstances, the State Government vide order dated 13.02.2025 has issued directions including such persons who were within the cut off date as on the date of vacancy and petitioner(s) is/are also entitled for similar benefit. 5.
He has also adverted to the Uttar Pradesh Prosecuting Officers Service Rules 1991, particularly Rules 10 and 14 to submit that it is the year of vacancy which should be relevant and not the date of advertisement for purposes of cut off date for Age Limit. 6. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances and particularly since decision with regard to same is required to be taken by the State Government, liberty is granted to petitioner(s) to file a fresh representation before opposite party No.1 i.e. Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Appointment, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow U.P. with regard to their grievance which shall be considered and decided expeditiously within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. November 13, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 13150 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench