Allahabad High Court
RAHUL CHAUHANversusState of UP AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The order dated 10‑Apr‑2024 is quashed and the petitioner's claim is to be reconsidered by the Regional Regularisation Committee in accordance with the guidelines of the Srivastava judgment and the Government Order.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Chauhan, was appointed to a short‑term vacancy in 1995 and his request for regularisation was denied. He contended that he should benefit from a Government Order dated 04‑Oct‑2024, issued pursuant to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vinod Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. (Writ‑A No.21492 of 2023). The High Court examined whether the respondent’s order dated 10‑Apr‑2024, which rejected the regularisation, should stand. Relying on the guidelines in paragraph 149 of the Srivastava judgment and the 04‑Oct‑2024 Government Order, the Court quashed the respondent’s order. The matter was remitted to the Regional Regularisation Committee for fresh consideration within three months of the certified copy of this order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularisation under the Government Order dated 04‑Oct‑2024 and the precedent set by Vinod Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P.
- Whether the order dated 10‑Apr‑2024 passed by Respondent No.2 should be quashed.
Subjects
- regularisation
- short‑term appointment
- government order
- writ petition
- quashing order
- regional regularisation committee
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 8381 of 2024
Rahul Chauhan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilendra Singh, Prabhat Kumar
Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The petitioner claims that he was appointed against a short term
vacancy in the year 1995. His claim for regularization was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be
extended the benefit of the Government Order dated 04.10.2024 issued in
pursuance of the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ-A No.21492 of
2023 (Vinod Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. And Others) decided on
30.09.2024.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the
respondent no.2 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Regional
Regularization Committee to accord fresh consideration to the claim of
the petitioner, keeping in mind the guidelines laid down in paragraph
no.149 of the judgment rendered in Vinod Kumar Srivastava (supra) as
well as the Government Order dated 04.10.2024, within a period of three
months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before
the Committee.
5. With the aforesaid directions, instant writ petition stands disposed of.
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
April 6, 2026/S.A.
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…