Allahabad High Court
KAMLESH SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the preliminary objection is not sustainable and ordered the pending inquiry to be concluded after hearing, disposing of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Kamlesh Singh, filed a writ petition challenging the inaction on an inquiry into alleged irregularities in the appointment of respondent No.5 and others. The State respondents argued that the petition was a public interest litigation and therefore not maintainable in service matters. The Court examined the series of orders dated 31 October, 28 November, and 12 December 2022, which showed that multiple inquiry reports had been generated and the matter had been referred to the State Government and later to the Vigilance Department. Finding that the preliminary objection was untenable and that an inquiry was indeed pending, the Court declined to rule on the merits of the allegations. It ordered that the pending inquiry be concluded in accordance with law after giving the respondent an opportunity of hearing, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition challenging service appointment irregularities constitutes a public interest litigation and is maintainable.
- Whether the preliminary objection raised by the respondents is sustainable.
- Whether the court can direct the conclusion of a pending inquiry without adjudicating the merits of the allegations.
Subjects
- service law
- writ petition
- public interest litigation
- appointment irregularities
- inquiry
- higher education
- vigilance department
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 17301 of 2022
Kamlesh Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Pramod Kumar
Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Alok Mishra, Birendra Prasad Shukla, C.S.C.,
Gagan Mehta, Manoj Kumar Singh
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. This is the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the year 2022 essentially against
the respondent no. 5 that an inquiry has already been initiated against him about his
nature of the appointment. Therefore same may be concluded.
2. A preliminary objection is raised on behalf of counsel for respondent no. 5 that
present writ petition is nothing but a public interest litigation, which is not permissible
in service jurisprudence.
3. The Court takes note that in this present writ petition following relevant orders were
passed on 31.10.2022, 28.11.2022 and 12.12.2022, which are referred hereinafter:-
" 31.10.2022
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State
respondents and Sri Birendra Prasad Shukla learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is, respondent Director Higher
Education has turned a blind eye to the enquiry report dated 01.10.2018 that found
true serious allegations made against the appointment of respondent No. 5 and others.
Sri S.P. Sharma learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays and is granted three
weeks' time to obtain clear written instructions as to what action has been initiated
pursuant to submission of above enquiry report and why, if at all, such delay has
remained unaddressed for four years.
Put up as fresh on 28.11.2022.
In the meantime, it is left open to the respondents to initiate appropriate action."
"28.11.2022
WRIA No. 17301 of 2022
2
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Upon instructions, Shri S.P. Sharma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
states, there are three enquiry reports dated 1.10.2018, 2.2.2019 and 21.09.2020. At
present, the matter has been referred to the State Government for further action to be
taken. That reference has been made on 9.9.2022. Almost three months have passed
since then. Appropriate decision ought to have been made by now.
Put up as fresh on 12 December 2022 to enable learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel to make clear statement as to the final decision made."
"12.12.2022
Pursuant to last order, Shri Ajay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
states, on 10.12.2022, the matter has been referred to the Vigilance Department in
view of the contradictions in the three enquiry reports dated 1.10.2018, 2.2.2019 and
22.9.2020. He prays for and is granted six weeks time for final decision in the matter.
Accordingly, put up in the additional cause list on 13 February 2023 in top ten cases.
On the next date, appropriate affidavit be filed by respondent no.2/Director of Higher
Education, U.P., Prayagraj with respect to final outcome of the enquiry."
4. Court is of the opinion that since above referred orders are been passed therefore at
this stage the preliminary objection is not sustainable. It is not disputed that some
proceedings are initiated against the respondent no. 5, which has not been denied by
the counsel for the State-respondent or the contesting respondent.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of that if there is no
legal impediment and that some inquiry is pending, the same be concluded in
accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent
concerned.
6. It is made clear that Court has not entered into the merit of this case so far as to
whether allegations levelled against the said respondent has merit or not.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
February 17, 2026
Vibha Singh
Digitally signed by :-
VIBHA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…