Allahabad High Court
PREM NARAIN SHUKLAversusD.D.E.MADHYAMIK and OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed as infructuous due to the inordinate delay and lack of interim relief.
Summary
The petitioner, Prem Narain Shukla, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18 April 1998 issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi, which rejected his claim for appointment. The petition sought relief against the administrative decision but no interim order was granted and there is no record of the petitioner having worked in the institution thereafter. The Court noted that the petition was filed in 1998 when the petitioner was about 42 years old, making him approximately 70 years old at the time of hearing in 2026. Given the extraordinary lapse of time and the absence of any interim relief or subsequent service, the Court held that the petition had become infructuous. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition without addressing the merits of the appointment claim. The decision underscores the principle that undue delay can render a petition non-maintainable.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief against the order rejecting his appointment as a school teacher
- Whether the writ petition remains maintainable despite the extensive delay in filing and hearing
Subjects
- appointment
- writ petition
- administrative order
- delay
- infructuous petition
- school recruitment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14983 of 1998
Prem Narain Shukla
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
D.D.E.Madhyamik And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : G.K. Singh, Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,
Ravindra Kr. Dubey, Sankalp Narain,
V.K.Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vinod Kumar Singh
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri V.K.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Bhawni
Chaurasia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition was filed against the order dated 18.4.1998, passed
by District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi, whereby claim of the
petitioner for appointment was rejected.
3. Admittedly, no interim order was granted in the present case and there
is nothing on record that petitioner has worked thereafter in the
institution.
4. Otherwise also, Court finds that this writ petition was filed in the year
1998 when petitioner was aged about 42 years, therefore presently he
must be around 70 years, therefore, there is no ground to consider further
on merit, rather this writ petition has rendered infructuous by efflux of
time and it is accordingly disposed of.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
May 12, 2026
SB
Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…