HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13916 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Diwakar Singh, learned State Counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 to 3. 2. In view of order being passed, issuance of notice to opposite party No.4 stands dispensed with. 3. Petition has been filed challenging select list issued in pursuance of advertisement dated 24.02.2021 pertaining to recruitment for the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police), Platoon Commander (PAC) and Fire Second Officer. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to re-conduct the aforesaid recruitment examination has also been sought as well as a direction for conducting an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation/Special Investigating Team. 4. Learned State Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding entertainability of this petition in view of the fact that select list was issued in June, 2022 and the petition is therefore barred by laches of more than 3 ½ years which have not been cogently explained. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner in response thereto submits that earlier with regard to same relief, Writ-A No. 4581 of 2022, Sandeep Parihar and 28 others v. State of U.P. and 10 others had been filed and was disposed of vide judgment and order date 17.04.2023. It has Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepak Kumar Pandey, Shashwat Chaudhary, Zeeshan Ali Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Murtaza Hasnain Khan Sneh Lata And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) been submitted that petitioners are seeking same benefit. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly judgment rendered in the case of Sandeep Parihar (supra) as well as in the case of Sonika Garg and 9 others v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No.1675 of 2023, it is evident that same selection was under challenge, but this Court did find substance in the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner for cancelling the examination. However, directions were issued for future selections. 7. In terms of judgment rendered in the case of Sandeep Parihar and others (supra), a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sonika Garg and others (supra) has also dismissed the petition. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that in the aforesaid two writ petitions, this Court was disinclined to grant relief. No cogent reason is made out for grant of interference. 9. In view thereof, petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. December 2, 2025 lakshman WRIA No. 13916 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench