V.K. Saxena vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2332 ALL

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2332 ALL
Judgement Date : 7 May, 2022

Allahabad High Court

V.K. Saxena vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 7 May, 2022

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2357 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- V.K. Saxena
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Pandey,Kamini Pandey (Dubey)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Petitioner is raising a stale claim, as he has already retired from service way back in the year 1992. His entire claim is based on a subsequent judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Yadu Nath Singh and others (Writ Petition No. 336 (S/B) of 2000, decided on 19.07.2007, wherein certain directions were passed which were limited to the claimants who were before State Public Service Tribunal in 606 claims petitions and order dated 16.11.1998 passed by Tribunal was under challenge. The Division Bench has partly allowed the writ petition and the direction Nos. 6 to 8 of the judgment of Tribunal were substituted.

2. Admittedly, petitioner was not a party before Tribunal. Said writ petition was decided way back in the year 2007 and petitioner, while sitting at the fence, he approached respondents by way of filing representations dated 24.11.2010, 20.11.2020 and 15.12.2020 belatedly. Petitioner then approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No. 8350 of 2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.07.2021 with direction to respondents to decide representation of petitioner.

3. In pursuance of above order, representation of petitioner was decided by means of impugned order dated 28.09.2021 wherein it is specifically mentioned that petitioner is not even qualified for promotion as his qualification is High School only whereas the minimum qualification required for the post of Swasthya Shiksha Adhikari is Graduation. The qualification of petitioner is not disputed by learned counsel for petitioner.

4. In view of above, it is evident that petitioner was sleeping for many years and suddenly woke up from sitting at fence and raised his claim on the basis of judgment dated 19.07.2007, which was passed in the facts and circumstances of that case. Even petitioner has not possessed requisite qualification for promotion. I, therefore, do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the claim of petitioner is not based on any legal provision.

5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 7.5.2022