HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 4436 of 2024 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. 1. Counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the prayer clause- II. 2. Counsel for opposite parties has no objection. 3. In view of the aforesaid, the prayer clause-II is hereby struck off. 4. Counsel for the petitioner shall make necessary amendments during the course of the day. Order on memo of writ petition 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Piyush Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following main reliefs:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 29.4.2024 passed by the opposite party no.2 as contained in Annexure No.1 tot his writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite party no.2 to allot the petitioner, who is a duly selected candidate at Sl. No. 254 in the select list, some other Degree College in the order of preference given by the petitioner as similarly situated person Dr. Ashok Kumar Dubey has been appointed on the post of Principal in Bappa Sri Narain Vocational P.G. College, Lucknow." 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Dr. Jayash Nath Mishra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Higher Education Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) of the petitioner has been rejected by the Director, Higher Education on wrong premises. He added that in the matter of the identically situated employee namely, Dr. Ram Asare Singh, the Judgment and order was passed on 23-01-2025 in Writ A No. 20475 of 2024 and the petitioner is seeking the same relief. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has pointed out that there is a slight difference in the case of the present petitioner as well in the case of Dr. Ram Asare Singh as he was appointed against a substantive vacancy and therefore, the case of the present petitioner is different than the case of Dr. Ram Asare Singh. 5. The aforesaid contention has been refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 29-04-2024 is hereby quashed. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the claim of the petitioner be considered as fresh, in light of the case of Dr. Ram Asare Singh (Writ A No. 20475 of 2024), if the case of the present petitioner is identical to the case of the petitioner. 8. This issue will be dealt with and decided by the authority concerned, mainly on the premises that whether the case of the present petitioner is identical to the case of Dr. Ram Asare Singh and a decision shall be taken by the authority concerned with a period of six weeks from the date a representation is made by the petitioner. 9. Consequences shall be followed. November 25, 2025 Muk WRIA No. 4436 of 2024 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench