Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Dr.Keshav Narain Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 13748 of 2001 [2006] RD-AH 20899 (12 December 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Civil  Misc. Writ Petition  No. 13748 of 2001

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.

The standing counsel was granted time to file counter affidavit by order dated 1.8.2005 and, thereafter on 6.4.2006, a stop order was passed granting one month and no more for filing counter affidavit to the standing counsel.    

No counter affidavit has been filed so  far. The main contesting party in this case is the respondent No. 1, who has passed the impugned order dated 21.10.2000, Annexure 8 to this writ petition refusing 'non-functional selection grade' to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not found fit for grant of that selection grade in the meeting of the Selection Committee dated 16.10.2000.

It appears from the record before us that  'non-functional selection grade' was granted vide Government Order dated 6.9.1990. The procedure for selection to that grade was provided by the Government Order dated 30.4.1991. The order of the U.P. Government dated 31.3.1992 has been enclosed as Annexure 4 to this writ petition, which says that in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Government Order dated 30.4.1991 and on the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted thereunder, certain persons had been selected for grant of selection grade and the list of such persons was enclosed with that order of the Government. The petitioner's name finds place at serial number 32 of that list. Subsequently, due to reasons not clear, the petitioner's case is alleged to have been considered again by the Selection Committee on 16.10.2000.

Because, the reasons for this second consideration are not clear and the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's representation does not mention anything about it and more importantly no counter affidavit having been filed to clarify the situation, we have no option but to  quash the impugned order dated 21.10.2000, Annexure 8 to this writ petition, and to require the respondent No. 1 to re-examine the matter with proper reasons and all the facts. The petitioner may, therefore, make a fresh representation along with certified copy of this order setting out in a concise but comprehension manner the facts on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming relief and may also enclose copies of such documents as the petitioner may choose in support of his case. The respondent No. 1 will take a reasoned decision within two days of the date on which these documents are received by him.

This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

Dated : December 12,  2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.