Allahabad High Court
SHARDA PRASAD AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Holding
The petition was dismissed as infructuous because the petitioners had already exceeded the statutory upper age limit of 62 years.
Summary
The petitioners, Sharda Prasad and another, challenged two office orders dated 29‑12‑2016 and 05‑01‑2017 that directed their removal from contractual Technical Assistant posts after attaining the age of 62. They sought a writ of certiorari to quash the orders and a mandamus directing the respondents not to oust them. The court noted that a Government Order dated 23‑10‑2008 expressly caps the upper age limit for such contractual appointments at 62 years. At the time of filing, the petitioners were about 60 years old and are now over 64, thereby exceeding the statutory limit. Consequently, the court held that the petition had become infructuous and dismissed it. The dismissal effectively upheld the validity of the office orders under the applicable age‑limit rule.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy (certiorari or mandamus) to challenge the office orders directing removal of contractual employees after reaching the age limit?
- Do the office orders contravene the Government Order of 23‑10‑2008 that sets the upper age limit at 62 years for Technical Assistants?
- Is the petition maintainable when the petitioners have already surpassed the statutory age limit?
Subjects
- age limit
- contractual appointment
- certiorari
- mandamus
- public service
- senior citizen
- petition dismissed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 1787 of 2022
Sharda Prasad And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gunjan Sharma, Namit Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
(SN.20)
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1.The instant petition has been filed with the following prayers:
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to
quash the impugned office order dated 29.12.2016 passed by
Respondent No. 1 and impugned office Order dated 05.01.2017
passed by Respondent No. 2 (Annexure No. 8 & 9 to the Writ
Petition respectively) with all of its consequential effects
whatsoever throughout.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the Respondents to not to oust the petitioners
from their post after attending 62 years of age in pursuance to
impugned office orders dated 29.12.2016 and 05.01.2017
passed by Respondent No. 1 & 2 respectively."
2. Vide order dated 29.12.2016, the representation of the petitioner was
rejected in the light of the Government Order dated 23.10.2008, which
provided that with regard to the contractual appointment of the Technical
Assistants, the upper age limit of such contract is 62 years. At the time of
the instant petition so filed by the petitioners, the petitioner claim that he
was aged about 60 in his affidavit. Thus, at present, the petitioner must be
more than 64 years.
WRIA No. 1787 of 2022
2
3. In such view of the matter, the instant petition has become infructuous,
according, the same is dismissed.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
September 24, 2026
Shubham Arya
Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM ARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…