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


Mohammad Muslem v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 69531 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5430 (9 November 2005)


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).


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J

The counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Kanpur Region, Kanpur as respondent no.5 to the writ petition and to correct  the particulars of respondent no.4.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner has completed training in the trade of Motor Mechanic from the U.P.S.R.T.C. during the period from 6.10.89 to 5.10.1990. Certificate of training has been issued by respondent no.5 which has been appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the directions given in judgment dated 26.8.1993 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993, Mohammad Muslim Vs. State of U.P. and others by this Court, the respondents are not absorbing/appointing the petitioner.

The counsel for the respondents states that since the matter has already been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 26.8.1993, the second writ petition on the same cause of action  is not maintainable and is liable to the rejected on this ground. This contention of the counsel for the respondents that this is the second writ petition for the same cause of action is not rebutted by the counsel for the petitioner.

The only prayer of the counsel for the petitioner pressed is that a direction may be issued to respondent no. 5 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 11.2.2005 within a time frame fixed by this Court.

The standing counsel has no objection to this prayer.

In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent no. 5 to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order along with copy of the representation.

The petitioner shall file a certified copy of this order before respondent no. 5 within 2 weeks from today.

Dated 9.11.2005



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.