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.Ram Raj & Others v. Zila Samaj Kalyan Adhikari Alld.& Others - WRIT - A No. 32457 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 8136 (1 May 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.31

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32457 of 2000

Dr.Ram Raj and others Vs. The Zila Samaj Kalyan

Adhikari, Allahabad & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 3.7.2000, whereby approval to the appointments of the respondents no.2, 3 and 4 on the post of Assistant Teachers in the institution Jan Seva Samiti Kevai Bujurg, Allahabad, has been granted. Neither the said institution nor the office bearers of the Society has been impleaded as party in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed in the year 2000 and at the time of filing of the writ petition it appears that on request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this matter was directed to be listed alongwith the record of writ petition no.25747 of 1995 and thus even notice has also yet not been issued to the respondents.

Now after six years of filing of the writ petition, at this stage when the matter was taken up for hearing, when it was found that the institution has not been arrayed as a party, learned counsel for the petitioners orally prayed for time to implead the said institution as respondent, which does not deserve to be allowed at this stage. It has further been noticed that the prayer in the writ petition is only for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 3.7.2000, whereby the approval has been granted to the appointment of respondents no.2, 3 and 4. The petitioners have not prayed for any relief in their favour. As such, in view of the fact that the institution, where the respondents have been appointed as Assistant Teachers, has not been made party as well as in view of the fact that the petitioners are not claiming any relief for themselves, I am of the opinion that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.    




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.