Allahabad High Court
Brijendra Nath Srivastava vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 11 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:54204
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16239 of 2024
Petitioner :- Brijendra Nath Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lok Nath Shukla,Omkar Dutt Malviya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for following relief:-
"i. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 3.9.2024 issued by the respondent no.3 (Annexure no.-1 to the writ petition)."
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the show cause notice issued to him after his retirement.
At this stage, learned Standing Counsel submits that the present matter is covered by the judgment and order dated 7.1.2025 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.13475 of 2024 and other connected matters. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:-
"7. In aforesaid circumstances, a specific query is raised to Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri R.P. Debey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for State-Respondents, that whether petitioners and other affected persons have still liberty to submit their reply to challenge the conclusion of committee on merit, to which, Sri Mehta has made a specific reply, which can be considered as a stand of Government, that said issue is still open and petitioners and other affected persons can still object the conclusion of committee on merit also.
8. Learned Additional Advocate General has added that there are various irregularities in appointment of petitioners and their regularisation, however, at this stage Court is not entering into said dispute, as the same is not subject matter of these writ petitions.
9. In aforesaid circumstances, the Court is not entering into submissions raised by learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners on merit as it is a stand of Government before this Court that petitioners can raise said issue by replying impugned notice. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that since impugned notice is bereft of information about reasons given by Committee, it cannot be considered to be a legal notice, in its present form.
10. In view of above, impugned notice/ office order dated 26.07.2024 is hereby set aside and State-Respondents are directed to issue fresh notice which shall include reasons assigned by Committee and it would be more reasonable if alongwith notice copy of "Committee's Report" may also be enclosed so that petitioners and other affected persons may file effective reply and thereafter State-Respondents may take reasoned decision, expeditiously.
11. With aforesaid observations/ directions, all these writ petitions are disposed of."
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the foundation on the basis of which the show cause notice was issued has left its efficacy on account of the judgment dated 7.1.2025 passed by this Court and the present show cause notice has virtually rendered infructuous and a fresh notice would be given to the petitioner, if so required.
In view of the aforesaid submission made by learned Standing Counsel, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment and order dated 7.1.2025 passed in Writ-A No.13475 of 2024.
Order Date :- 11.4.2025
Bhaskar
