Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49992 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10501 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Sadhana Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Yadav,Sheo Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hare Ram,Mukesh Kumar,Vikram Bahadur Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Sheo Ram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the the respondent no.5 and Sri Hare Ram, learned counsel for the BSA, Etawah. 2. Petitioner is claiming himself to be a whistle blower and he is aggrieved that despite an inquiry was initiated against the respondent no.5 that he has obtained appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher by producing forged documents, however, by the impugned order dated 14.11.2022, said complaint was rejected on ground that said respondent has attained age of superannuation wayback in the year 2017, therefore, at this stage no action could be taken against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the impugned order, it has been mentioned that on basis of an inquiry, documents of concerned respondent were not found in the records of concerned records school, from where said respondent has claimed to pass in Intermediate (Class XII). 4. It is not under dispute that a complaint was filed after the retirement of said respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and learned counsel for the BSA, Etawah have supported the impugned order and submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, since he has already worked for substantial period and has attained the age of superannuation way back in the year 2017, therefore, at this stage to pass an order that his appointment was void-abinitio would not only be against the interest of justice, but contrary to a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 10, which was followed by this Court in Writ-A No.22080 of 2013, Neutral Citation No.-2025:AHC:14912. 6. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records. 7. Aforesaid fact is not under dispute that respondent no.5 was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher and has worked for a substantial period and retired in the year 2017 as well as the petitioner has filed a complaint after about 3-4 years. 8. So far as that there is a finding that petitioner was not duly selected or appointed and his details were not available with the school and to unsuit him after such a longtime, would not only be against the interest of justice, but also against the dictum of Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Yadav (supra). 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no illegality in the impugned order, therefore, relief sought cannot be granted. 10. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad