HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 12842 of 2026 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. 1. Heard Shri Lalit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, Shri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:- "A writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.2 and 3 to decide the claim of the petitioner and also decide the representation of the petitioner dated 08.07.2026 within stipulated period as directed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that his services were dispensed with as long back as on 30.12.2017 and thereafter he has moved various representations and application under the Right to Information Act but till date no reply has been given by the competent authority i.e. the respondent No. 3; and in the aforesaid backdrop he submits that his representation may be decided. 4. Shri Pankaj Mishra, appearing on behalf of the respondent-College, submits that the present writ petition has been filed with material concealment; whereas the petitioner has already assailed his order of termination dated 30.12.2017, by way of Writ-A No. 14164 of 2018, which this Court dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2018. However, there is no whisper of the aforesaid petition in the affidavit filed along with the aforesaid petition. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lalit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Misra, Rohit Pandey Mulayam Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. On a pointed query to the counsel for the petitioner, he has vehemently submitted that in the said petition, he has only assailed the advertisement dated 14.06.2018 published for the various posts, but not his impugned termination order. A copy of the order dated 16.07.2018 has been placed before this Court by the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, and perusal of the same clearly indicates that the petitioner has also challenged his termination order dated 30.12.2017. For ready reference, the relevant extract of the aforesaid order dated 16.07.2018 is reproduced below:- "The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the advertisement dated 14.6.2018 published for various posts of Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, Computer Science, Lab Technician, Lab Assistant, Librarian, Assistant Librarian, Personal Assistant and Networking as well as the termination order dated 30.12.2017. According to the petitioner he was working as Workshop Superintendent in the Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Agra College, Agra. His grievance is that his services have been terminated by an order dated 30.12.2017. The impugned order, however, shows that the petitioner was engaged purely on contract basis on a fixed salary and that no appointment letter was ever issued to him. The petitioner was allowed to work on contract basis till further selection on fixed salary by the then Dean Faculty through his noting dated 3.6.2013. The impugned order clearly mentions that no letter of appointment was ever issued to the petitioner nor any process of selection known to law was ever processed in the matter of giving appointment to the petitioner. His appointment was never approved by any appointment/selection Committee. The petitioner has also not been able to show that he was appointed against any substantive vacancy through any process of selection known to law. No order of appointment has been filed with the writ petition and the learned counsel for the petitioner also states that no letter of appointment was issued to him. Considering all these facts, we do not find any good ground for interfering with the advertisement dated 14.6.2018 or the impugned order of termination dated 30.12.2017. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed." 6. Perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that the impugned termination order dated 13.12.2017 was assailed, and this Court, vide its judgment dated 16.07.2018, dismissed the said writ petition; and the said order has WRIA No. 12842 of 2026 2 attained finality. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that no intra-court appeal was preferred against the order dated 16.07.2018. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that this petition has been filed with material concealment and an effort was made to misguide this Court, by not only concealing a material fact, but thereafter, when confronted with the said judgment, counsel for the petitioner tried to canvas before the Court that only the advertisement dated 14.06.2018 was the subject matter of challenge in Writ-A No. 14164 of 2018, which is again a factually incorrect fact. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is liable to be dismissed with costs; accordingly, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. September 23, 2026 piyush WRIA No. 12842 of 2026 3 (Siddharth Nandan,J.) Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad