Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6654 (ALL)

DR. RAKESH SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS

WRIA/11195/2026 · 2026-09-10

Siddharth Nandan

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 11195 of 2026 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. 1. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Yasin Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Abhishek Goswami, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.7 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the respondent no.7 alleges himself to be appointed vide order dated 21.11.2007; but however, strangely the perusal of the order dated 21.11.2007 indicates that the services will be considered w.e.f. 09.07.2009. He further submits that the respondent no.7 thereafter filed a petition being Writ-A No.10185 of 2025 only in the year 2025 with the following prayer:- "(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the District Inspector of Schools, Santkabir Nagar i.e. Respondent No.3 to pass appropriate order with respect to the Approval/ Financial Sanctioned to the appointment of the petitioner. (B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents-Authorities to release the salary in favour of the Petitioner as admissible under the law on the post of Class IV employee." 3. However, the Court vide order dated 30.07.2025 was pleased to direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Lucknow and in turn he was directed to Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Goswami, C.S.C., Shiv Pujan Bharti Dr. Rakesh Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) decide the said representation, in accordance with law. 4. He has also placed before this Court an order dated 14.11.2025 by way of which without issuing any notice to the petitioner (as per the case of the petitioner), an order dated 04.11.2025 was passed wherein the financial approval was granted subject to any subsequent fraud or fact being brought to the knowledge of the District Inspector of Schools, Sant Kabir Nagar. However, when the said order was not implemented and subsequent orders dated 17.12.2025 and 25.06.2026 were passed and the Manager of the Institution has been authorized to submit the bills of the respondent no.7 along with other employees. 5. Contention of Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel is that from the very perusal of the impugned order dated 21.11.2007 and thereafter filing of the writ petition after more than 18 years i.e. in the year 2025 itself demonstrates the fraudulence of the appointment of respondent no.7 and thereafter the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 being passed without hearing the Principal of the Institution, who is the appointing authority of Class-IV employees, is also indicative of the fact that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.7 submits that the said factual assertion can very well be looked into by the District Inspector of Schools after giving opportunity to the petitioner and he has no objection in case the impugned order at this stage is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.4. 7. In view of the aforesaid, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending and by the consent of the parties the impugned orders dated 14.11.2025, 17.12.2025 and 25.06.2026 issued by respondent no.4, are hereby set aside, with a direction to issue notice to all the affected parties within a period of 7 days from the date of service of certified copy of this order and decide the issue regarding the appointment of respondent no.7 afresh, within the next two months keeping in mind the observations made herein above and till such time the salary to respondent no.7 shall not be disbursed. It is also made clear that in case the salary of the Principal has been withheld, the same shall also be released forthwith from May, 2026 till date and the same shall be WRIA No. 11195 of 2026 2 disbursed on month to month basis. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands allowed. September 11, 2026 S.Prakash WRIA No. 11195 of 2026 3 (Siddharth Nandan,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad