HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 6498 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Asit Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State. Preliminary objection is raised by the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 that the present petition is not maintainable on the pretext that the petitioners are not the persons aggrieved. He further submitted that the petitioner no.1 is the mother of one employee and the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are retired employees and they have sought no relief in their favour. He further submitted that direction in the nature of mandamus has been sought for the Chief Secretary to make an enquiry while appointing some Dvisional Level officer. He, thus, submitted that the present petition may be dismissed on this ground alone. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to refute the submission aforesaid. Upon considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that following relief has been sought:- "i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1, i.e. Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to decide the complaint form a Committee of experts and Headed by Competent Authority (i.e. post above the level Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Santdei And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Govt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) of Divisional Commissioner) to inquire/investigate the fraud, illegalities, arbitrary action in the appointment and confirmation in service of several persons in RDA (Rae Bareli Development Authority) and the said committee after inquiry/investigation should submit its report to respondent no. 1, i.e. Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh within the prescribed period. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 should take action against the persons involved according to the law. A copy of the above report should also be provided to the petitioners." The fact remains that the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are retired employees and the petitioner no.1 is mother of one employee and they are said to have moved some complaint for making some enquiry/investigation regarding unlawful appointment/confirmation of several persons working in the Raebareli Development Authority. Apparently, no relief is sought by the petitioners for redressal of their grievances. Thus, the petitioners are not the persons aggrieved and, therefore, no such mandamus can be issued. In view of the above, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed accordingly. November 21, 2025 Ram Murti WRIA No. 6498 of 2025 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench