HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14290 of 2025 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. 1. The present petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs :- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the Government Orders dated 15.12.2008 & 07.06.2010 (Annexure Nos. 12 & 13) issued by the State of U.P. so far as it restricts the right of engagement on Administrative posts, like Head of the Department etc. of faculty members appointed on contractual basis in State run Medical Colleges of the State of U.P. as violative of Article 19(1)(g) & Article 14 & Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Office Order dated 23.04.2025 issued by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. 14) as the same is in clear violation of NMC Regulations. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the Government Orders dated 15.12.2008 & 07.06.2010 (Annexure Nos. 12 and 13) issued by the State of U.P. as violative of the NMC Regulations, namely, 'Medical Institutions (Qualifications of Faculty) Regulations, 2005' & 'Minimum Requirements For Annual MBBS Admissions Regulations, 2020'. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to grant the designation of Head of the Department, Radio-Diagnosis in Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government Orders dated 15th December, 2008 and 7th June, 2010 are contrary to the regulation of the National Medical Commission. He submitted that in the department, no one is working as a regular faculty and therefore in pursuance of the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Praveen Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anurag Sharma, C.S.C. Dr. Rachna Chaurasia .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Government Orders, no one in that department can be appointed as a Head of Department. It is also referred in the provision of Commission that no department can be left without any Head and in the peculiar circumstances, as none are working as a regular faculty, therefore the Head of Department was appointed from the different faculty. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the above said circumstances, the petitioner is working in the department for long time and due to the aforesaid Government Orders, her right of becoming of Head of Department are being violated, which is contrary to the regulations as well as provisions under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of National Medical Commission vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the instant petition is nothing but a gross misuse of the process of the law. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed according to aforesaid impugned Government Orders and it is clearly stated that the persons who have been appointed on adhoc basis are not entitled for the post of Head of Department. It is admitted fact that the petitioner herein is working on a contractual basis, therefore she is not entitled for the post of Head of Department. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to make out any case that the Government Orders are contrary to regulations of National Medical Commission as referred during the arguments. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no legal right to seek any order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus after more than 15 years declaring contrary to the Government Orders dated 15th December, 2008 and 7th June, 2010. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same may be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Suresh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Sri Anurag Sharma learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and perused the averments made in the petition. 5. I have perused the Government Orders which have been referred by learned counsel for the parties during their submissions as well as the regulations which are vehemently relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner for proper adjudication. 6. After plain reading of the Government Orders and the regulations, I do not find that the Government Orders are violative of any provision or regulation issued by the Medical Commission. The petitioner was appointed in the year 2009 on the contractual basis and she is still working on contractual basis. The appointment of other persons from the other faculty is violative of the fundamental right of the petitioner, I do not find any good ground for interfering in the impugned government orders for issuance of mandamus to declare the governments orders violative of any constitutional provision or regulation. The writ of mandamus cannot be issued, if no right is violated. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus has a WRIA No. 14290 of 2025 2 limited scope and the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of mandamus can only be invoked if there is gross violation of any fundamental or legal right of the persons or any violation of any law or statutory provisions, 7. Taking into consideration of the submissions and materials on record, I do not find that the petitioner has any legal right to claim on the post of Head of Department as per the Government Orders dated 15th December, 2008 and 7th June, 2010. 8. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. September 22, 2025 Pratima WRIA No. 14290 of 2025 3 (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad