DURGA PRASADversusUNION OF INDIA and ANOTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - A No. - 15563 of 1985

Durga Prasad
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

Union Of India And Another
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Ayyaz Khan, Ekta Kaur, Narendra
                                  Kumar, R.N. Tripathi, Shaheen Bano,
                                  Shahnawaz Khan
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : H.C. Dubey, Rajesh Tripathi, S.C.

Court No. - 34

(SN.17)

                 HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. In terms of the previous order, the counsel for the petitioner has
produced a receipt of deposit of the cost amount with the High Court
Legal Services Committee, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Shaheen Bano, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Dileep Kumar Kesarwani, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
the State.

3. The instant petition has been filed with the following prayers:

     "(a) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
     prohibition prohibiting the Respondents from discharging the
     petitioner from service.

     (b) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus
     directing the respondents to consider the petitioners case after
     allowing him to file his High School Certificate and Mark
     Sheet for the 1978 Examination. "

4. At the time of the filing of the instant petition, the petitioner was aged
about 23 years, as per the affidavit filed in support of the instant petition
by the petitioner, therefore, as of now, the petitioner must have attained
the age of superannuation.
                                                       WRIA No. 15563 of 1985
                               2


5. The briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was
enrolled on 25.05.1980, as Technical Assistant in the respondent
Department and was sent for training for 22 months. Later, there was a
dispute with regard to the qualification of the petitioner, as High School
Certificate was not available, though he has provided the Intermediate
Marksheet. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner was asked to provide
the Certificate of the Intermediate as well as the High School, etc. Despite
the demand made by the respondents, the petitioner could not supply the
aforesaid documents of High School Certificate as well as the
Intermediate Certificate.

6. Later, the petitioner herein proceeded on leave. While the petitioner
was on annual leave, letters were sent to the petitioner to provide the
aforesaid documents, failing which he will be discharged from service, for
want of minimum educational standard for retention in service.

7. The case of the petitioner is that, at the time, by the aforesaid letters
which were received by the petitioner on 26.05.1985 and 30.04.1985, the
school wherefrom the petitioner has completed his education was closed
due to summer vacation and therefore, he could not obtain the aforesaid
Certificates. Thus, he could not produce. Later, after completion of his
annual leave period he rejoined and thereupon, his signatures were
forcibly obtained in the blank papers and thereupon, an application for
discharge was prepared on the aforesaid documents. On the basis thereof,
the petitioner has been discharged from service on 17.05.1985.

8. Immediately thereafter, the signatures on blank papers were obtained
forcibly on 13.05.1985. It is the case of the petitioner that he has
complained to the Higher Authorities, however, no action was taken and
later he was discharged on 17.05.1985. However, no formal discharge
order was ever communicated to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the
instant petition was filed by the petitioner, seeking a direction in the
nature of prohibition to the respondents from discharging the petitioner
from service and mandamus to respondents to accept the High School
Marksheet and Certificate, which he has already qualified in the year
1978 and thus, to permit him to continue in service. However, no interim
order was ever granted in the instant petition and this petition has
                                                                                             WRIA No. 15563 of 1985
                                                                    3


                                    repeatedly dismissed in default, number of times and later restored, on the
                                    application moved by the petitioner. However, since the petitioner has
                                    now attained the age of superannuation, the prayers as made in the instant
                                    petition cannot be granted.

                                    9. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.

                                    10. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has made the submission
                                    that the payment of salary / remuneration etc., while he was in service has
                                    not been made. No prayer in this regard has been made in the instant
                                    petition. In such view of the matter, it is open for the petitioner to
                                    represent with regard to the aforesaid grievances before the Authorities
                                    concerned, which shall be considered in accordance with rules by the
                                    respondents.



                                                                                         (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    Shubham Arya




Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM ARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad