Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32382 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2880 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dr. Shivesh Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Shukla,Himanshu Singh,Ravi Shankar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pratik Chandra Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Himanshu Singh, learned counsel for eptitioner and Sri Pratik Chandra, Advocate for Respondent-University. 2. The best case of petitioner on basis of material available alongwith this writ petition is that he has worked with Nandan Post Graduate College, Kunda, Pratapgarh as Assistant Professor (Sanskrit) on monthly honorarium from 10.12.2009 to 30.06.2017. The writ petition is silent, whether petitioner has worked after 30.06.2017 or not. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has earlier approached this Court when Respondent-College was not providing experience certificate by way of filing Writ-A No. 11276 of 2022, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.08.2022 with observation that experience certificate be provided to petitioner. Said order is reproduced hereinafter: “Learned counsel for petitioner is granted liberty to implead Nandan P.G. College, Kunda, Pratapgarh, U.P., through its Manager as respondent no.3 during the course of day. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 and Mr. Pratik Chandra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent to release the experience certificate to petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that all the necessary documents pertaining to grant of experience certificate has already been submitted by him but the experience certificate has not been issued till date. Learned counsel for respondent no.2-University submits that till date the institute in question has not forwarded the requisite documents due to which the experience certificate could not be issued. Considering the aforesaid, respondent no.3 i.e. Manager, Nandan P.G. College, Kunda, Pratapgarh, U.P. is directed to forward the necessary documents pertaining to grant of experience certificate to petitioner to respondent University in case there no impediment. In case such documents are forwarded within a period of two weeks from the date a copy of this order is furnished before the concerned Institute upon receipt of such documents, the respondent no.2 may issue the experience certificate in case there is no impediment in doing so in which case the impediment will be made known to the petitioner within the same time period. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 4. From above referred order, it does not appear that petitioner at that time, i.e., in the year 2022, has approached this Court with a specific averment that he was illegally discontinued. His case was only limited to grant of experience certificate, which was later on provided. 5. Now in the year 2024 petitioner is trying to make out a case by referring a detail representation dated 15.04.2023 that he was wrongly disengaged or not allowed to work without complying the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, specifically Section 35 thereof. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent-University submits that claim of petitioner after eight years cannot be considered. Even there was no requirement of approval of Vice Chancellor since petitioner was appointed only on honorarium and not in terms of the provisions of Act, 1973. 7. I have considered the above submissions. It appears that when first writ petition was filed in the year 2022 the grounds which ought to have been taken, were not taken and case of petitioner was limited to grant of experience certificate and now it appears that on a legal advise petitioner has approached this Court to fill up the lacuna and to claim that he was disengaged without following the due process of law. 8. The law is well settled that a ground which was available at the time of filing of first writ petition and not taken, cannot be permitted to take in second round of litigation specifically when it was filed after a period of more than eight years. 9. So far as claim of petitioner that there was a requirement of prior approval is concerned, it has no legal basis since appointment of petitioner was made only on honorarium and he has not crossed the rigour of recruitment process with other eligible candidates. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no relationship of employer and employee between petitioner and Respondent-College. 10. Otherwise also, as referred above, petitioner was not cautious to file complete writ petition in earlier round of litigation and such lacuna cannot be allowed to fill in second round of litigation, which is filed belatedly. 11. In view of above, writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad