Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78914 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 63102 of 2009 Petitioner :- Kshma Verma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Chaurasia,Hirdesh Kumar Yadav,Pankaj Kumar,Sushma Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aroop Banerjee Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Original petitioner (since deceased) has approached this Court in the year 2009 that her appointment on post of Assistant Teacher was cancelled during probation period. The order does not reflect any allegation, however, according to petitioner, its background was punitive and stigmatic. 2. Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was forced to convert religion and when she refused, impugned order was passed. Original petitioner died on 21.05.2015 and a Substitution Application was filed which was allowed vide order dated 06.07.2017 and her husband was arrayed as her legal heir. Correct substitution was not carried out in arrays of parties as title would be Kshma Verma (Since Deceased) through Omkar Nath Lal. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has made an argument that since impugned order has malafideness, therefore, a complete inquiry has to be conducted. However, Court is not convinced since there is nothing punitive or stigmatic in impugned order. 4. A reference made on certain applications would not be sufficient to hold that impugned order was punitive in nature. 5. Sri A.K. Nagvanshi, learned Additional C.S.C. submits that since original petitioner has expired, therefore, this writ petition has become infructuous. 6. I have considered above submissions. 7. Impugned order does not indicate that it was punitive or any allegation was made against original petitioner. Original petitioner's services were terminated on a ground that her services were not required after probation period. It is not disputed that petitioner was appointed on probation of 1 year. 8. Otherwise also, since original petitioner died in 2015, therefore, relief sought cannot be granted to her husband. 9. In view of above, no case for interference in impugned order or to grant any relief to husband of original petitioner is made out. 10. Accordingly, writ petition lacks merit, hence, dismissed. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Sinha_N. Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad