Alok Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 16541 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:37036
 
Court No. - 17
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7046 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Alok Mishra
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Empowerment Persons With Disabilities And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Utsav Mishra, Gaurav Mehrotra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Atul Kumar Dwivedi
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atul Kumar Dwivedi for the respondents.

2. The issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Writ A No.4923 of 2022 (Dr. Rajendra Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 08.05.2023, as argued by the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the respondents states that the case of the petitioner is distinct from the case decided by this Court in Writ-A No.4923 of 2022 (supra), to argue the said proportion, he takes a few observation from paragraph 79 wherein this Court while delivering the judgment had considered the individual cases and found that they were duly qualified and their services could not terminated.

3. In the light of the said observations made in paragraph 79, the learned Senior Advocate argues that in the case of the petitioner, the requirement and eligibility condition, specified that the incumbent should have eight years of legal practice as a registered Advocate in the High Court whereas in the counter affidavit, the stand taken by the respondents is that while filling the application form, the petitioner did not annex therewith a copy of the experience certificate.

4. The counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the registration of the petitioner with the Bar Council, being of the year 2003. He also places reliance on a certificate issued by a Senior Advocate of this Court, the said certificate relied upon by the petitioner, has not been denied in the counter affidavit nor is the same said to be a forged and fabricated document.

5. In view thereof, I have also perused the records and I am of the view that the petitioner possess the minimum qualification. The other grounds on which the judgment has been delivered in the case of Dr. Rajendra Kumar Srivastava (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

6. Thus, the writ petition is disposed off on the same terms and conditions as contained in the judgment dated 08.05.2023 passed in the case of Dr. Rajendra Kumar Srivastava (supra). The impugned order dated 30.08.2022 and the resolution which led to the passing of the order dated 30.08.2022 are quashed. The petitioner shall be paid the salary and consequential benefits including the back wages from the date of termination.

Order Date :- 24.5.2023

VNP/-