# Dr. Richa Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1144
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-07
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 2542 of 2023
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-richa-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49815
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India, Article
226 - Review of earlier judgment in a
subsequent judgment - The petitioner
prayed for the judgment dated 29.01.2019
in Writ Petition No. 6785/2018 to be
declared per incuriam. Held: The Court
held that the said judgment cannot be
subjected
to
review
or
its
validity
questioned in the present writ petition. A
Bench of any court is bound to follow the
decision of another coordinate Bench of
equal
strength
to
maintain
judicial
propriety. The judgment of a Single Judge
can only be set aside by a Division Bench
in a special appeal or by the Supreme
Court in an appeal against the said order.
Accordingly, the petitioner's arguments in
this regard are rejected. (Paras 26, 27)

Civil
Law
-
Service
Law
-
Dispute
pertaining to appointment after a lapse of
19 years - Petitioner cannot be permitted
to challenge and dispute the appointment
for the first time after a lapse of 19 years
from the date of respondent no. 6's
appointment, or after a substantial length
of time following her own appointment in

## Text

1144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 4 ILRA 1144
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-A No. 2542 of 2023

Dr. Richa Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Utsav Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shubham Tripathi, Vinayak Saxena

Civil Law - Constitution of India, Article
226 - Review of earlier judgment in a
subsequent judgment - The petitioner
prayed for the judgment dated 29.01.2019
in Writ Petition No. 6785/2018 to be
declared per incuriam. Held: The Court
held that the said judgment cannot be
subjected
to
review
or
its
validity
questioned in the present writ petition. A
Bench of any court is bound to follow the
decision of another coordinate Bench of
equal
strength
to
maintain
judicial
propriety. The judgment of a Single Judge
can only be set aside by a Division Bench
in a special appeal or by the Supreme
Court in an appeal against the said order.
Accordingly, the petitioner's arguments in
this regard are rejected. (Paras 26, 27)

Civil
Law
-
Service
Law
-
Dispute
pertaining to appointment after a lapse of
19 years - Petitioner cannot be permitted
to challenge and dispute the appointment
for the first time after a lapse of 19 years
from the date of respondent no. 6's
appointment, or after a substantial length
of time following her own appointment in
2013. If the petitioner had been serious
about challenging respondent no. 6's
appointment as Assistant Professor, she
could have done so within a reasonable
period after her own appointment in 2013.
Having remained a silent spectator, she is
deemed to have acquiesced. Petitioner
cannot be allowed to contest the initial
appointment dispute at her convenience.
(Para 23)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava
& ors. (2015) 1 SCC 347

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sandeep Dixit, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Utsav Mishra for
the petitioner, Sri S. K. Kalia, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Shubham Tripathi
and
the
Standing
counsel
for
the
respondents.

2. The petitioner has assailed the
decision of the respondents to give
charge/appointment to respondent No.6 as
Head of Department of Microbiology in
Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of
Medical Sciences, Lucknow (hereinafter
referred to as the SGPGIMS) and further
seeks a direction to the respondents to
appoint the petitioner on the said post.

3. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
was
initially
appointed
as
Assistant
Professor in Department of Microbiology
in
SGPGIMS
on
24.5.2013
and
subsequently she was confirmed on the said
post. She was further promoted to the post
of Associate Professor in Department of
Microbiology under Career Advancement
Scheme (CAS) on 28.12.2016 and further
promoted to the next higher post of
Additional Professor on 16.3.2020 on
which
she
is
presently
working.
4 All. Dr. Richa Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1145

4. It is submitted that SGPGIMS was
established by the statute known as Sanjay
Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical
Sciences Establishment Act, 1983 and with
regard to reservation and age relaxation for
all the reserved category candidates rules of
Government
of
Uttar
Pradesh
are
applicable. According to sub regulation (3)
of rule 40 of First Regulation of 2011 and
as per Regulation 53 of First Regulation
2011 the President of the respondent
Institute is Chief Secretary of Government
of Uttar Pradesh and is the appointing
authority of class 1 officers of the
SGPGIMS.

5. In pursuance of advertisement
No.22/2003-04 which was issued for
recruitment
of
reserved
category
candidates, respondent No.6 was selected
and appointed to the post of Assistant
Professor in Department of Microbiology
and at the time of filing of the writ petition
was holding the post of Additional
Professor.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that respondent No.6 who
belongs to scheduled tribe category is a
native of State of Manipur and had applied
under the Scheduled Tribe category. It is
stated that respondent No.6 was not eligible
for
being
appointed
under
reserved
category on the post of Assistant Professor
in Department of Microbiology. The
appointment of respondent no.6 and other
persons appointed in pursuance to the
advertisement
N.22/2003-04
was
questioned
by
certain
members
of
Legislative
Council
and
appointments
made thereunder were also duly considered
by the State of U.P. and it was held that the
candidates who belong to outside the State
cannot be given benefit of reservation.
However, such candidates are eligible to
apply on unreserved vacancies only and,
hence, entire matter was placed before the
governing
body
of
SGPGIMS
for
consideration of such appointment.

7. The matter was also raised before
this Hon'ble Court in writ petition No.1472
(S/B) of 2007 (Dr. Rishi Setti Vs. State of
U.P. and others) and the said matter is still
pending consideration. The issue was also
raised at various other forums including
Uttar Pradesh State Commission for
Backward Classes and a meeting was held
on 3.3.2009 under the Chairmanship of
Secretary, State of U.P. where it was
decided that such posts which have been
filled-up in violation of reservation policy
be declared as ex-cadre posts, and entire
aforesaid exercise culminated in passing of
the Government Order dated 15.10.2010
issued by Principal Secretary, Medical
Education, State of U.P. whereby the State
Government took decision to declare the 8
posts occupied by such persons belonging
to outside the State of U.P. (including
respondent No.6), who had been extended
the benefit of reservation policy and had
been appointed on the reserved category
posts meant for candidates belonging to
scheduled castes, scheduled tribe and other
backward classes having domicile of U.P.,
be
declared
as
ex-cadre
posts.
In
compliance with the aforesaid decision, the
respondent institute was directed to take
necessary action in compliance thereof.

8. In compliance of the aforesaid
Government Order dated 15.10.2010 an
office order dated 15.9.2016 was issued by
Director, SGPGIMS where it was provided
that the posts occupied by the candidates
belonging to reserved category candidates
of outside the State be declared as having
been appointed on ex-cadre posts. It was
further provided that they shall not be
1146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
eligible for holding the posts of Head of
Department or any administrative post or
any responsible post.

9. Being aggrieved of the Government
order dated 15.10.2010 issued by Principal
Secretary, Medical Education, State of U.P.
as well as office order dated 15.9.2016
issued by Director, SGPGIMS respondent
No.6 approached the Hon'ble Visitor
assailing the said orders. Apart from the
fact that they were never given opportunity
of hearing prior to passing of the said
orders also that there was no such condition
laid down in advertisement No.22/2003-04
about requirement of domicile of State of
U.P. or that domicile of other State would
not be eligible and regarding that, both the
orders
were
issued
by
incompetent
authorities in as much as the Director and
the Principal Secretary were not the
appointing authorities as according to
Section 11 of the Act, the Chief Secretary
of U.P. is the President of SGPGIMS and
Chairman of governing body and according
to Regulation 2 President is the appointing
authority for Assistant Professors.

10. The representation of respondent
No.6 was duly considered and decided by
the Visitor vide order dated 29.1.2019
setting aside the order of Director,
SGPGIMS
dated
15.9.2016
but
no
interference was shown in Government
Order dated 19.10.2010 as the same was
beyond the competence of the Visitor to set
it aside. It has further been submitted that
the order dated 15.10.2010 was also
challenged by one Dr. Narayan Prasad,
who was similarly situated and selected
along with the respondent no.6 and who
had also approached the Visitor and an
order was passed in his favour on 6th April,
2018.
The
Government
order
dated
15/10/2010 was challenged before this
Court in writ petition No.6785 of 2018
(S/S) by Dr. Narayan Prasad, as in his case
also the Hon'ble Visitor had set aside only
the order of Director SGPGIMS and
15.09.2016 and not the Government order
dated 15/10/2010. The Single Judge of this
Court vide judgment and order dated
09.05.2019 allowed the writ petition and
set aside the Government order dated
15.10.2010 and 9.8.2018 and directed the
respondents to provide all consequential
benefits to the petitioner and that he will
not be treated in ex-cadre service and will
not ignore the petitioner in providing the
benefits of seniority in service and other
benefits and hold administrative post.

11. Sri Sandeep Dixit, learned counsel
for the petitioner has urged that the order of
Single Judge is not liable to be followed in
the present case in as much as ex-facie
rules
of
reservation
applicable
to
SGPGIMS
were
not
followed
and
respondent No.6 could not have been
appointed against reserved vacancies of
scheduled
caste/Scheduled
Tribe
and,
therefore prayed that the case of the
petitioner may be considered ignoring the
aforesaid judgment and order or in
alternative declare the same as per incuriam
as the same has been passed in ignorance of
the well settled legal principles. He submits
that the petitioner being next senior most
faculty member is entitled to be appointed
as Head of Department and may be given
charge of the said post.

12. Sri S. K. Kalia, Senior Advocate
has vehemently opposed the writ petition.
He submits that the State Government
considering various allegations with regard
to appointment of the respondent no.6 and
other similarly situated persons passed the
Government
Order
dated
15.10.2010
declaring the respondent No.6 and 7 others
4 All. Dr. Richa Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1147
to be holding ex-cadre post. Subsequently,
the SGPGIMS has issued the order dated
15.10.2016
in
compliance
of
the
government order dated 15.10.2010. The
respondent no.6 came to know of the order
dated 15.09.2016 declaring the post held by
the petitioners to be ex-cadre post and had
challenged the said order before Hon'ble
Visitor, who after a detailed order dated
29.1.2010 allowed claim of the respondent
no.6 and set aside the order dated
15.09.2016 passed by Director, SGPGIMS.
He
has
further
submitted
that
the
Government Order dated 15.10.2010 was
also challenged before this Hon'ble Court
by similarly situated persons and the same
has also been quashed by this Court in writ
petition No.6785 of 2018 (Narayan Prasad
Vs. State of U.P. and others) by means of
the judgment and order dated 9.5.2019. It is
stated that even the Special Appeal being
Special Appeal No.254 of 2019 is pending
consideration before Division Bench of this
Court.

13. It is stated that at present the
entire controversy has been laid to rest, and
the Government order dated 15.10.2010 as
well as the order of Director, SGPGIMS
declaring the respondent no.6 to be holding
ex-cadre post have been set aside, with the
result that respondent no.6 is deemed to be
holding the post within the cadre and being
the senior most faculty member is duly
entitled to be appointed as Head of
Department in compliance of the decision
taken by the respondents in this regard.
This
court
was
also
informed
that
respondent No.6 has already taken over the
head of Department Microbiology on
29.03.2023 and accordingly prayed for
dismissal of the writ petition.

14. I have heard the counsel of the
parties and perused the record. The
petitioner by means of present writ petition
seeking to lay claim of the Post of Head of
Department Microbiology, SGPGIMS. In
order to take over as Head of Department
of Microbiology, he has also prayed that
respondent No. 6 be declared to be holding
ex-cadre post and hence not eligible to be
appointed as Head of Department.

15. The appointment of respondent
No.6 and other persons who were recruited
in pursuance to the advertisement No.
22/2003-2004 were subjected to scrutiny at
the State Government level, where after
due consideration Government Order dated
15.10.2010
was
issued.
The
State
Government considered the fact that 8 of
the persons recruited in the aforesaid
recruitment were not domicile of the Uttar
Pradesh and have been given the benefit of
Reservation Act, 1994. After consultation
with the Department of Personnel the said 8
persons so recruited their appointments
were protected and were declared as
holding ex-cadre post. The consequential
order
was
passed
by
the
Director
SGPGIMS on 15/09/2016.

16. The order of the director
SGPGIMS was challenged before the
Hon'ble Visitor by respondent No.6 by
filing a representation dated 05/12/2016
and also by another similarly situated
person-Dr
Narayan
Prasad.
The
representation of respondent No.6 was
allowed on 29/01/2019 and the order of the
Director, SGPGIMS dated 15/09/2016 was
set aside.

17.

The
Hon'ble
Visitor
was
persuaded
by
the
fact
that
the
Advertisement No.22/2003- 2004 inviting
applications for eligible persons with
regard to the Department of Microbiology
four posts were advertised which included
1148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1 post for General category, 2 posts were
reserved for Scheduled Caste and one for
OBC. Respondent No. 6 is a person
belonging to Scheduled Tribe and belongs
to State of Manipur where Garo tribe is
recognized as a Scheduled Tribe. The State
government
while
holding
that
the
respondent No. 6 could not have been
granted the benefit of reservation in the
category of scheduled tribe on the basis that
in Uttar Pradesh Garo tribe is not
recognized as a scheduled tribe.

18. In light of the aforesaid facts, the
Hon'ble Visitor was of the view that out of
the 4 post of Assistant Professors in the
Department of Microbiology which were
advertised, there was no post which was
reserved
for
Scheduled
Tribe,
and,
therefore, respondent No.6 could have been
appointed
only
against
the
General
category post and the order passed in this
regard was not sustainable hence there was
clear infirmity in the said order passed by
the Director, SGPGIMS, and, therefore, set
aside the order dated 15/09/2016.

19. The Government Order dated
15/10/2010 was challenged before this
Court in writ petition No. 6785/2018 (SS)
which was allowed by means of judgment
and
order
dated
09/05/2019
after
considering the following issues:-

a.
the
appointment
of
the
petitioner was made in the year 2004 and
after 12 years had passed since the
appointment which was in accordance with
law done by a duly constituted selection
committee, and relying upon the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of M.S
Mudhol and another vs H.D. Halegkar
and others passed in SLP no.16256 of
1992 and Mrs. Rakha Chaturvedi vs
University of Rajisthan and others (1993)2
BLJR 854 it was held at the SGPGIMS is
bound by principle of estoppels and cannot
be allowed to change its stand and take a
U-turn.
It
was
also
held
that
the
respondents have chosen to acquiesce to
the appointment of the petitioner and it
would be inequitable to make them suffer
for the acts of the respondents.

b. Considering the orders dated
15/10/2010 and 09/08/2018 it was held that
it is apparent on the face of it that the
petitioner was not afforded any opportunity
to file his defense and consequently the
order is been passed in violation of
principles
of
natural
justice
is
not
sustainable in law.

20. It is on these aforesaid facts that
this Court is called upon to decide as to
whether a writ can be issued in favour of
the petitioner entitling him to take over the
charge of the Head of Department of
Microbiology. The petitioner can succeed
in the present writ petition only when the
respondent 6 is declared to be holding an
ex-cadre post, and the validity of the
Government Order dated 15/10/2010 as
well as order dated 15/09/2016 passed by
Director, SGPGIMS are upheld, otherwise
admittedly respondent no.6 is senior to the
petitioner having been appointed in 2004
viz a viz the petitioner who was appointed
on 24/05/2013.

21. The Government Order dated
15/10/2010 has already been set aside by
this court in writ petitions No. 6785/2018
and 32033 (SS) of 2018. Though the
respondent no.6 has not challenged the said
Government Order before this Court, but
the benefit accruing as a consequence of
setting aside of the said Government order
cannot be denied to him in the present
proceedings, and it cannot be argued that
just
because
the
petitioner
has
not
4 All. Dr. Richa Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1149
challenged the said order the benefit of the
same cannot be granted to him. This aspect
of the matter was considered by the
Supreme Court in the case of state of Uttar
Pradesh and others Vs Arvind Kumar
Srivastava and others (2015) 1 SCC 347.

22. The legal principles which emerge
from
the
reading
of
the
aforesaid
judgments, cited both by the appellants as
well as the respondents, can be summed up
as under:-

"22.2. However, this principle is
subject to well-recognised exceptions in the
form of laches and delays as well as
acquiescence. Those persons who did not
challenge the wrongful action in their cases
and acquiesced into the same and woke up
after long delay only because of the reason
that
their
counterparts
who
had
approached the court earlier in time
succeeded in their efforts, then such
employees cannot claim that the benefit of
the judgment rendered in the case of
similarly situated persons be extended to
them. They would be treated as fencesitters and laches and delays, and/or the
acquiescence, would be a valid ground to
dismiss their claim.

22.3. However, this exception
may not apply in those cases where the
judgment pronounced by the court was
judgment in rem with intention to give
benefit to all similarly situated persons,
whether they approached the court or not.
With such a pronouncement the obligation
is cast upon the authorities to itself extend
the benefit thereof to all similarly situated
persons. Such a situation can occur when
the subject-matter of the decision touches
upon the policy matters, like scheme of
regularisation and the like (see K.C.
Sharma v. Union of India [K.C. Sharma v.
Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 : 1998
SCC (L&S) 226] ). On the other hand, if
the judgment of the court was in personam
holding that benefit of the said judgment
shall accrue to the parties before the court
and such an intention is stated expressly in
the judgment or it can be impliedly found
out from the tenor and language of the
judgment, those who want to get the benefit
of the said judgment extended to them shall
have to satisfy that their petition does not
suffer from either laches and delays or
acquiescence.

23. The Government order dated
15/10/2010 was also challenged by Dr Able
Lawrance by filing writ petition being writ
petition No. 32033(SS) of 2018 which was
also allowed in terms of the judgement
dated 09/05/2019 passed in writ petition
No. 6785 (SS) of 2018.The extension of
benefit of the Judgment passed in writ
petition No. 6785 (SS) of 2018 even to by
Dr Able Lawrance clearly indicates that
this Court was of the view that the
judgement dated 09/05/2019 applies to all
the persons affected by government order
dated 15/10/2010, and therefore when the
same has been set aside, it covers the case
of respondent No.6 also, and it is not
necessary for every individual to approach
court to seek a similar declaration. This
Court is also conscious of the fact that
SGPGIMS has itself accepted the verdict of
this Court dated 09/05/2019 and prepared a
common seniority list for all the professors
including the names of persons affected by
government order dated 15/10/2010.

24. In the present case as soon as
respondent no.6 came to know about the
order dated 15/09/2016 he challenged the
same before the Hon'ble Visitor, who had
set aside the same by order dated
29/01/2019.
On
the
other
hand,
Government Order dated 15/10/2010 was
1150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also set aside by this Court. With regard to
the fact as to whether the judgement of this
Court would apply or not to respondent
no.6, this Court was of the considered view
that the judgement of the single judge
passed in writ petitions No. 6785/2018 and
32033 (SS) of 2018 would also apply to
him as firstly, the order dated 15/10/2010
was a common order with regard to all the
8 persons who were selected in pursuance
to the advertisement No. 22/2003-2004, on
common ground. The grounds considered
by the Hon'ble Single judge of this Court
even cover the case of respondent No.6 in
as much as no opportunity of hearing was
granted before passing of the said order,
and more importantly the said order
became final and was duly accepted by the
government as well as the SGPGIMS.
Though a Special Appeal has been filed at
the behest of the private individual namely
Dr Devendra Gupta being Special Appeal
No. 254 of 2019, and subject to the
outcome of the said Special Appeal, the
issue has become final between the
Government and SGPGIMS on one hand
and all the 8 persons who were affected by
the order dated 15/10/2010 on the other.
The SGPGIMS has further in compliance
of the judgement dated 29/01/2019 of this
Court issued a common seniority list of all
the professors of the SGPGIMS which also
includes respondent no.6 and others who
were affected by the Government Order
dated 15/10/2010.

25. Therefore, from the aforesaid
facts
the
dispute
pertaining
to
the
appointment of respondent No. 6 and other
similarly situated persons has been decided
as both the orders namely 15/10/2010 and
15/09/2009 are no longer in existence. The
Hon'ble Visitor as well as this Court set
aside the orders holding the respondent No.
6 and other similarly situated persons as
having been appointed on ex-cadre posts.
The respondents have also accepted the
verdict of this Court as well as the order
passed by the Visitor, and subject to the
decision in the Special Appeal which is
pending consideration before this Court,
the issue is no longer alive issue, and the
petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate
and raise the said issue for the 1st time after
the lapse of 19 years from the date of the
appointment of respondent no. 6, or after
the substantial length of time after his / her
own appointment which was made in the
year 2013.

26. Considering the submission of the
counsel of the petitioner that the judgement
dated 29/01/2019 passed in writ petition
No. 6785/2018 be declared per-incuriam,
this Court is of the considered view that the
said judgement cannot be subjected to
review or its validity questioned in the
present writ petition. Another reason for
not accepting the contention on the
petitioner is the fact that the Government
Order dated 15/10/2010 is not under
challenge in the present proceedings, and
hence there is no occasion for this Court to
test the validity of the said Government
order or the precedential value of a
previous judgment quashing the said
Government order.

27.

Had
the
validity
of
the
Government order dated 15/10/2010 been
under challenge in the present writ petition,
then only this Court would have an
occasion to consider various grounds raised
and legal provisions in its support, to
consider its validity, but the said question
does not arise in the present case in absence
of challenge to the same. A Bench of any
court is bound to follow the decision of
another coordinate Bench of equal strength
to
maintain
judicial
propriety.
The
4 All. Shikha Abrol Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1151
judgement of the Single Judge can be set
aside only by a Division Bench in special
appeal or by the Supreme Court in appeal
against the said order and accordingly the
arguments of the petitioner in this regard
are rejected.

28. This Court is also of the
considered view that the petitioner has
never assailed the order of the Hon'ble
Visitor or the judgement of this Court dated
19/05/2019 and, therefore, in absence of
the challenge to the same, relief as prayed
cannot be granted to the petitioner. In any
view of the matter when the order of the
Hon'ble Visitor is still holding field and has
not even been subjected to any challenge
before any forum, there is no reason to
deny respondent No.6 the benefit of the
said order. It is for the same reason that this
Court is not going into the detailed
submissions made by counsel for the
petitioner with regard to the applicability of
U.P. Public Servants (Reservation for
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Other Backwards Classes) Act, 1994 while
assailing the appointment of respondent
No. 6, apart from the fact that a Special
Appeal assailing the order of Hon'ble
Single Judge is pending consideration,
where
all
these
arguments
may
be
considered.

29. Another reason for not interfering
with the decision of the SGPGIMS in
appointing respondent No. 6 as Head of
Department (Microbiology) is that the dispute
regarding his appointment and selection was
under consideration at various levels for the
last 19 years, and such dispute cannot be
allowed to continue endlessly, and a quietus
has to be given to the dispute at some stage.
Permitting the petitioner to continue to agitate
the dispute is neither in public interest nor in
the interest of SGPGIMS nor the teaching
faculty. The petitioner was aware of this
situation since the date he joined the
Department of Microbiology but chose to
remain silent and only when the issue
pertaining to appointment on the post of Head
of Department (Microbiology) has gain
momentum, he has chosen to stake his claim.
Had he been serious with regard to the
challenge of appointment of respondent no. 6
as an Assistant Professor, he could have done
so within a reasonable period of time after his
appointment in 2013. He having remained a
silent spectator, will be deemed to have
acquiesced to the order of Hon'ble Visitor as
well as Judgment of this Court dated
09/05/2019 and, hence, cannot be permitted
to agitate this dispute at his convenience
when the post of Head of Department is
about to fall vacant.

30. This Court has also been informed
that respondent no. 6 has already taken over
as Head of Department of Microbiology.

31. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court
is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in favour of the
petitioner, and subject to the decision of the
Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 254 of
2019, the writ petition is dismissed.
----------

(2023) 4 ILRA 1151
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ-A No. 3372 of 2002

Shikha Abrol ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents