HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15563 of 1985 Court No. - 34 (SN.17) HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. In terms of the previous order, the counsel for the petitioner has produced a receipt of deposit of the cost amount with the High Court Legal Services Committee, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Shaheen Bano, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dileep Kumar Kesarwani, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The instant petition has been filed with the following prayers: "(a) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the Respondents from discharging the petitioner from service. (b) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners case after allowing him to file his High School Certificate and Mark Sheet for the 1978 Examination. " 4. At the time of the filing of the instant petition, the petitioner was aged about 23 years, as per the affidavit filed in support of the instant petition by the petitioner, therefore, as of now, the petitioner must have attained the age of superannuation. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ayyaz Khan, Ekta Kaur, Narendra Kumar, R.N. Tripathi, Shaheen Bano, Shahnawaz Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) : H.C. Dubey, Rajesh Tripathi, S.C. Durga Prasad .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And Another .....Respondent(s) 5. The briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was enrolled on 25.05.1980, as Technical Assistant in the respondent Department and was sent for training for 22 months. Later, there was a dispute with regard to the qualification of the petitioner, as High School Certificate was not available, though he has provided the Intermediate Marksheet. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner was asked to provide the Certificate of the Intermediate as well as the High School, etc. Despite the demand made by the respondents, the petitioner could not supply the aforesaid documents of High School Certificate as well as the Intermediate Certificate. 6. Later, the petitioner herein proceeded on leave. While the petitioner was on annual leave, letters were sent to the petitioner to provide the aforesaid documents, failing which he will be discharged from service, for want of minimum educational standard for retention in service. 7. The case of the petitioner is that, at the time, by the aforesaid letters which were received by the petitioner on 26.05.1985 and 30.04.1985, the school wherefrom the petitioner has completed his education was closed due to summer vacation and therefore, he could not obtain the aforesaid Certificates. Thus, he could not produce. Later, after completion of his annual leave period he rejoined and thereupon, his signatures were forcibly obtained in the blank papers and thereupon, an application for discharge was prepared on the aforesaid documents. On the basis thereof, the petitioner has been discharged from service on 17.05.1985. 8. Immediately thereafter, the signatures on blank papers were obtained forcibly on 13.05.1985. It is the case of the petitioner that he has complained to the Higher Authorities, however, no action was taken and later he was discharged on 17.05.1985. However, no formal discharge order was ever communicated to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the instant petition was filed by the petitioner, seeking a direction in the nature of prohibition to the respondents from discharging the petitioner from service and mandamus to respondents to accept the High School Marksheet and Certificate, which he has already qualified in the year 1978 and thus, to permit him to continue in service. However, no interim order was ever granted in the instant petition and this petition has WRIA No. 15563 of 1985 2 repeatedly dismissed in default, number of times and later restored, on the application moved by the petitioner. However, since the petitioner has now attained the age of superannuation, the prayers as made in the instant petition cannot be granted. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. 10. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has made the submission that the payment of salary / remuneration etc., while he was in service has not been made. No prayer in this regard has been made in the instant petition. In such view of the matter, it is open for the petitioner to represent with regard to the aforesaid grievances before the Authorities concerned, which shall be considered in accordance with rules by the respondents. September 23, 2026 Shubham Arya WRIA No. 15563 of 1985 3 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad