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


Raj Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 29081 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 11175 (4 July 2007)


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).


Court No.39.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  29081  of  2007.

Raj Kumar Singh ...........Petitioner


The State of U.P. and others ...........Respondents.


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner under 50% quota as Lecturer Drawing (Technical) from 18th October, 2005.

The petitioner was appointed as as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade by the appointment letter dated 26th September, 2000. It appears that petitioner claimed for promotion on the post of Lecturer Drawing (Technical). The Management has passed a resolution on 4th December, 2006 in which petitioner's claim was also considered and it was observed that post of Lecturer Drawing (Technical) is a direct recruitment post. The Management has also written a letter dated 10th January, 2007 with regard to the claim of promotion and other demands in the institution. With regard to the petitioner it has been mentioned that post of Lecturer Drawing (Technical) fell vacant on 30th June, 1998 whereas the petitioner was appointed in the institution on 18th October, 2000. It has further been stated that although three posts are vacant under promotion quota but no L.T. Grade Teacher is eligible for promotion, hence all the three posts be filled up by direct recruitment. The statement of fact mentioned in paragraph 9 of the said letter is not even disputed. The post of Lecturer Drawing (Technical) fell vacant in the year 1998 when the petitioner was not in L.T. Grade. No error has been committed in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion as Lecturer.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which is an application given by the petitioner to the Manager for promotion under 50% quota on which certain notes and comments have been mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to some endorsement dated 31.1.2006 which mentioned about the details of the posts of Lecturer. There is no contradiction in the report at Page 48 as well as the letter of the Management dated 10th January, 2007. The Management itself mentioned that three posts are under promotion quota but there being no L.T. Grade Teacher eligible all the three posts be filled up by direct recruitment. From the endorsement at Page 48 the case of the petitioner does not improve in any manner.

No mandamus as claimed in the writ petition can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

Date: 4.7.2007.



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.