Allahabad High Court
MUKESH KUMAR RAIKAWARversusSTATE OF U.P. THRU SECY. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION and ORS.
- Decided
Holding
The petition is disposed in terms of the earlier interim order, with no adverse order, subject to a possible notice if a break in service is established.
Summary
Mukesh Kumar Raikawar was appointed to a short‑term vacancy, but the appointment was cancelled by an order dated 30‑April‑2002. He filed a writ petition in 2002 challenging the cancellation, and the court stayed the order on 22‑Nov‑2002, allowing him to continue in service. The petition was later dismissed in default in 2018, but was restored in 2023; a related petition had been withdrawn in 2013. The court observed that the petitioner had been working under the interim order for over two decades, and that issuing an adverse order now would be contrary to the interests of justice. Consequently, the petition was disposed in accordance with the interim order, with a caveat that if there was any break in service, the respondent may issue an order after giving prior notice.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the cancellation order on the petitioner's appointment to a short‑term vacancy?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to continue in service under the interim order despite the cancellation?
- Whether the long passage of time and continued service affect the court's discretion to grant relief.
Subjects
- appointment
- short term vacancy
- interim order
- service continuity
- writ petition
- cancellation of appointment
- justice
- restoration of petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 20147 of 2002
Mukesh Kumar Raikawar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Ministry Of Education
And Ors. .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jai Singh Parihar, Kaushelendra
Kumar, Piyush Kumar Shukla,
Rajendra Kumar Mishra, S.J.Shandilya,
V.Shandilya, Vinay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., R.P.Tiwari
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Jawahar Lal Dube, Advocate holding brief of Sri Piyush
Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel for State-Respondents.
2. This writ petition was filed in the year 2002 against order dated
30.04.2002 whereby petitioner’s appointment against a short term
vacancy was cancelled.
3. In the present case, this Court has passed an interim order dated
22.11.2002 whereby impugned order was stayed and present writ petition
was connected with Writ Petition No. 44363 of 2002.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner thereafter has
worked under the strength of interim order and is still working.
5. The Court takes note that this writ petition was dismissed in default
vide order dated 13.07.2018, however, it was restored after about five
years vide order dated 24.07.2023. It is not on record whether there was
any break in service or not.
WRIA No. 20147 of 2002
2
6. The Court also takes note that connected Writ Petition No. 44363 of
2002 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.08.2013.
7. In aforesaid circumstances, since petitioner has already enjoyed interim
order for about more than two decades, therefore, at this belated stage to
pass any adverse order would be against the interest of justice.
8. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of interim
order. However, it is made clear that in case there was any break in
service of petitioner, concerned respondent is at liberty to pass an order
by the putting petitioner on a prior notice.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
May 12, 2026
AK
Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…