Allahabad High Court

RAJ KUMAR VERMAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 5 OTHERS

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: MANISH KUMAR NIGAM

Holding

The Court held that it will not examine the merits of the promotion claim but directs the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation within twelve weeks, after affording a hearing to all parties.

Summary

The petitioner, a Police Inspector, filed a writ petition seeking mandamus directing the State to consider his promotion to Deputy Superintendent in accordance with service rules, to examine his seniority vis‑à‑vis a junior who had already been promoted, to produce relevant seniority and assessment records, and to pass a reasoned order on his representation dated 20‑08‑2026. The respondents opposed, but the Standing Counsel suggested that the petition be disposed after directing consideration. The Court noted that it would not adjudicate the merits of the promotion claim and merely ordered Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s representation within twelve weeks, after giving a hearing to all parties. The order emphasized compliance with law and procedural fairness. Consequently, the petition was disposed without a substantive ruling on the promotion claim.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the State to consider the petitioner’s claim for promotion to Deputy Superintendent of Police in accordance with applicable service rules

Subjects

promotion
police service
writ of mandamus
seniority
service rules
administrative law

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - A No. - 14998 of 2026

Raj Kumar Verma
                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Aditya Sharma, Amit Kumar Asthana
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : C.S.C.

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

1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for
promotion from the post of Police Inspector to Deputy Superintendent of
Police strictly in accordance with the applicable service rules;
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents to examine the petitioner's seniority vis-à-
vis the Police Inspectors junior i.e. respondent no.6 who has already been
promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police and to give promotion to
the petitioner on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police from the
date on which the next to the junior was promoted with all consequential
benefits;

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents to produce and examine the relevant
seniority list, eligibility list, zone of consideration, vacancy position, DPC
proceedings, ACR/APAR records and comparative assessment relating to
the petitioner and the promoted juniors and in the event it is found that
the petitioner Was eligible and ought to have been considered, direct the
respondents to reconsider his case for promotion in accordance with law;

(iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order
upon the the petitioner's representation dated 20.08.2026 (Annexure No.4
of writ petition) within a time-bound period fixed by this Hon'ble Court;"
                                                                                         WRIA No. 14998 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    2. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as petitioner has already
                                    represented, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition
                                    pending and it would be appropriate that respondent be directed to
                                    consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law.


                                    3. In view of these facts, respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and
                                    decide the representation dated 20.08.2026 of the petitioner in accordance
                                    with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned
                                    parties, expeditiously, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from
                                    the date of production of certified copy of this order.


                                    4. It is made clear that this court has not examined the matter on merits
                                    and the order shall be passed strictly in accordance with law.


                                    5. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.



                                                                                   (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Nitika Sri.




Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…