HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13742 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard Mr. I.B. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Desh Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Akbar Ahmed, Ms. Manjari, Mr. Gyanesh Bajpai, Mr. Atul Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 By means of the writ petition, the petitioner has sought following prayers:- "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 14.11.2025 and for its execution, the order passed by the Committee of Management dated 15/16.11.2025 annexed as Annexure no. 1 and 2, respectively, to this writ petition. (ii) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the opposite party no. 2 to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of the Principal, Shri Jai Narain Misra P.G Collage, Lucknow on the basis of his seniority." On December 1, 2025, following order was passed:- "Heard Mr. I.B. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Desh Deepak Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1, Mr. Anurag Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, while power on behalf of opposite party No.3 has been accepted by Mr. Avdhesh Shukla, Advocate which is Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Desh Deepak Singh, Nandini Verma, Rajat Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Akber Ahmad, Anurag Kumar Singh, Atul Dixit, Avdhesh Shukla, Gyanesh Bajpai Vinod Chandra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Higher Edu. Lko And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) taken on record and Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Akber Ahmed and Ms. Manjari, learned counsel for opposite party No.4 whose power filed today is also taken on record. Learned counsel for opposite party No.4 has raised three preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and entertainability of this petition in view of the fact that impugned order dated 14.11.2025 has been passed determining inter se seniority between petitioner and opposite party No.4. It is submitted that against impugned order, statutory remedy under Section 68 of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 is available but has not been availed of. Secondly, it is submitted that that specific allegations of mala fide have been alleged against the officiating Vice-Chancellor of the University without impleading such person personally. Thirdly, it has been submitted that the array of opposite parties as per the petition and the affidavit are not in consonance. With regard to third objection, learned counsel for petitioner is granted liberty to bring the array of opposite parties in the memorandum of petition in consonance with the parties indicated in the affidavit during the course of the day. Learned counsel for the said answering opposite party also submits that after filing of the petition, an order dated 29.11.2025 has been passed modifying inter se seniority between petitioner and opposite party No.4, but has neither been brought on record nor has been challenged. In view thereof, list this case on 04.12.2025 in the list of fresh cases in order to enable learned counsel for petitioner to meet out the preliminary objection nos. 1 & 2 so raised and to file an appropriate application bringing on record or providing challenge to the order dated 29.11.2025. Office is directed to print the names of Mr.Avdhesh Shukla, Mr. Akber Ahmad and Ms. Manjari, learned counsel for opposite parties whenever case is next listed." The Court, while passing the order dated 1.12.2025, has given liberty to the learned counsel for the petitioner to correct the array of opposite parties in the memorandum of petition, in consonance with the parties, indicated in the affidavit, during the course of the day. WRIA No. 13742 of 2025 2 From perusal of the correction, it is apparent that the correction has been made in the affidavit rather in the description of the parties in the memo of the writ petition. The Chapter IV Rule 18 prescribes that no interlineation, alteration or erasure shall be made in an affidavit, after it has been sowrn. In this view of the matter, the writ petition has become defective and thus, the same is dismissed as such. However, the petitioner is given liberty to move fresh writ petition. December 11, 2025 Ram Murti WRIA No. 13742 of 2025 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench