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


Tota Ram Niranjan v. Director Of Education Higher Education & Others - WRIT - A No. 10894 of 1988 [2007] RD-AH 6911 (16 April 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).


Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

In view of the office report dated 14.4.2007 the service of notice upon the petitioner has been deemed sufficient. None has put in appearance on his behalf.

We have perused the record.

The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 4.6.1988 whereby he has been informed that his appointment shall automatically terminate on 30.6.1988. He has further sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit him to continue till regularly selected candidate by U.P. Higher Education Service Commission is available. No interim order was passed and therefore in our view by efflux of time this writ petition has lost its efficacy. Moreover, the letter of appointment issued by the management on 6.11.1987 appointing the petitioner show that it was for a fixed period namely up to 30.6.1988 or till a candidate selected by commission is available whichever is earlier. The aforesaid order of appointment came to an end by efflux of time and there is nothing on record to show that any other letter of appointment has been issued to the petitioner. Once an appointment is made for a fixed period, the claim of the petitioner for continue beyond the period mentioned in the letter of appointment cannot be sustained in view of the decision of this Court in Alok Kumar Singh (Dr.) and 15 others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2002(2) UPLBEC 1373 and Writ Petition No. 28632 of 2006 (Dr. Amar Nath Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 23.5.2006. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.  

Dt. 16.4.2007



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.