Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SUNIL KUMAR YADAVversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The petition is disposed of without granting mandamus, and the respondent is directed to decide the pending representation within twelve weeks.

Summary

Petitioner Sunil Kumar Yadav filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of U.P. to promote him to Deputy Commissioner, Handloom and Textiles (effective 17‑05‑2018) and to Joint Commissioner, Industries (Handloom) (effective 11‑08‑2025), alleging that a junior colleague had been promoted under Rule 5 of the U.P. Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1991. He also requested the court to order the respondent to decide a representation he had filed on 20‑07‑2026 within a stipulated period. The respondent argued that the petition was unnecessary and that the representation should simply be decided within a reasonable time. The Court, after hearing both sides, declined to express any view on the merits of the promotion claim and instead disposed of the petition, directing the respondent to decide the pending representation within twelve weeks of the certified copy of the order, subject to hearing and any legal impediment. No mandamus for promotion was issued.

Issues considered

  • Whether the court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the promotion of the petitioner under Rule 5 of the U.P. Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1991.
  • Whether the court should direct the respondent to decide the petitioner's pending representation within a specified time frame.

Subjects

  • promotion
  • mandamus
  • seniority rules
  • representation
  • administrative law
  • writ petition
  • expeditious decision

Judgment

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                          WRIT - A No. - 13952 of 2026

Sunil Kumar Yadav
                                                                  .....Petitioner(s)
                                         Versus

The State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                               .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)            : Nikhil Kumar Yadav, Vagish Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)            : C.S.C.

Court No. - 33
                 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State and perused the record.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

     "(a) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
     commanding the respondent no. 1 to grant promotion to the petitioner on
     the post of Deputy Commissioner, Handloom and Textiles with effect from
     17.05.2018 and on the post of Joint Commissioner, Industries
     (Handloom) with effect from 11.08.2025 as granted to the Respondent no.
     3 who is junior to the petitioner as per Rule 5 of U.P. Government
     Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1991.

     (b) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
     commanding the Respondent no.1 to consider and decide the
     representation of the petitioner dated 20.07.2026 filed before the
     Respondent no. 1 through the Respondent no. 2 in accordance with law,
     preferably within a period of 4 weeks or as per direction of this Hon'ble
     Court. (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition)."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is seeking
promotion on the post of Deputy Commissioner for which he has moved a
representation which is pending consideration.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that no useful purpose would be
served in keeping this petition pending and it would be appropriate to direct
                                                                                            WRIA No. 13952 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    the respondent no.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner within a
                                    time frame as fixed by this Court.

                                    5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing
                                    any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed of
                                    finally with a direction to respondent No. 1 to consider and decide the
                                    aforementioned representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law,
                                    expeditiously, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
                                    production of a certified copy of this order after giving opportunity of
                                    hearing to the parties concerned provided that there is no other legal
                                    impediment.



                                                                                     (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Ved Prakash




Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.