HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13965 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Writ A No. 12687 of 2024 is hereby disconnected from the present petition namely Writ A No. 13965 of 2025. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 & 2, Ms. Anjuli Srivastava., learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and perused the record. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 14-11-2025, whereby the appointment of the petitioner on contract, for period of one year, has been cancelled, on the sole ground that Writ A No. 12687 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner and is pending consideration. Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has filed the aforesaid Writ A No. 12687 of 2024, challenging the advertisement for the post of the Associate Professor (Dentistry) on the ground that the same is not in consonance with the M.C.I. Rules. She submitted that thereafter, the order was passed and the petitioner was allowed to appear in the interview and the result is still awaited. She further argued that there is no order passed in Writ A No. 12687 of 2024, which could come into the way of allowing the petitioner to continue in furtherance to the appointment order dated 13-11-2025. She also submitted that mere pendency of the writ petition cannot be a ground for cancellation of any order, more so there is no order passed in the writ Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shweta Shukla, Anjuli Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Anjuli Srivastava Dr. Priyanka Kotia .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Edu. Lko And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) petition, on the basis of which, the appointment order, issued earlier by the respondent college, has been cancelled. She submitted that the order dated 14-11-2025 does not stand on it's own legs. In support of her contentions, she has also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs Chief Election Commissioner & Others, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, and has referred paragraph no. 8 of the said Judgment, which reads as under:- "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." Concluding her arguments, she submitted that as per the settled proposition of law, the order dated 14-11-2025, is unsustainable and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. On the other hand,learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 3 has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the appointment of the petitioner in the year 2024, vide appointment letter dated 11-11-2024, was for a period of one year and the writ petition was filed by the petitioner which is still pending consideration. She submitted that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis on 13-11-2025 but, as soon this fact came into WRIA No. 13965 of 2025 2 the knowledge, the appointment order has been revoked. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the records, it emerges that initially the petitioner was given appointment in the college of opposite party no.3, on 11-11-2024, on contract basis, for the period of one year and subsequent thereof, another order was passed on 13-11-2025 and the petitioner was again appointed for one year in the respondent college. When this court examines the order impugned in the facts and law, it is apparent that the order of appointment dated 13-11-2025 has been cancelled on the sole ground that Writ A No. 12687 of 2024 is pending consideration. This court has perused the ordersheet of Writ A No. 12687 of 2024, which does not disclose any restriction on further appointment of the petitioner in the respondent college. This court also finds that mere pendency of a writ petition would have no bar or a ground for cancellation of appointment of any person, on any post, which has already been done. The ground is prima-facie nonest and therefore, the order impugned dated 14-11-2025 does not stand on it's own legs therefore same is unsustainable, as is settled in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (Supra). Consequently, the order dated 14-11-2025 is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. Consequences to follow. December 5, 2025 AKS WRIA No. 13965 of 2025 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench