# Kuldeep v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 956
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-10
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 11401 of 2025
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kuldeep-v-state-of-u-p-52604
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Effect of being minor at the time of appointment
on the regularization, particularly when no
charge
of
concealment
or
fraud
or
misrepresentation
was
leveled
to
obtain
appointment.

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Cancellation
of
regularization - Petitioner was appointed
as Forester in 1991 and regularized on
26.03.2002
-
Regularization
was
cancelled on the ground that petitioner
was below 18 years on the date of
appointment - Validity challenged - No
charge of practicing concealment or fraud
or
misrepresentation
to
obtain
appointment was leveled - Effect :

Held : Bearing in mind that the writ petitioner is
working
since
1991,
his
services
stood
regularized on 26.03.2002 and by virtue of the
cancellation of the regularization order dated
07.05.2003, he was accorded interim protection
by this Court on 14.07.2003 and he continues to
work till date and there is nothing on record to
show that there is anything adverse, thus,
applying the principles of equity, writ petition is
being decided in the following terms: (a) the
order
dated
07.05.2003
passed
by

## Text

956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
outsourcing in terms of the Policy dated
19.07.2022, and as soon as the said
process is complete and personnel are
engaged having requisite qualifications
as per the new policy for working on the
aforesaid temporary posts, an order of
repatriation can be passed by the opposite
parties and the appellants herein will have
no further right to insist on working on
deputation under the opposite parties. They
will have to join back in their parent
department.

27. In view of the aforesaid, the
judgment of the learned Single Judge
except in respect of Special Appeal No.192
and 197 of 2025 cannot be sustained, it is
accordingly, quashed. All the appeals
except Special Appeal No.192 of 2025 and
Special Appeal No.197 of 2025 are
allowed. The Special Appeal No.192 of
2025 and Special Appeal No.197 of 2025
are dismissed. Needless to say that the
appellants shall be entitled to salary/pay for
the period they have either worked or kept
out of job on account of impugned orders
of repatriation which we have quashed
today.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 956
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ - A No. 11401 of 2025

Kuldeep ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
M.P. Raju

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Legality of the transfer order, when
earlier
an
order
on
the
issue
of
repatriation to parent department was
passed
by
S.S.P.
in
pursuance
of
Judgment of High Court.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Transfer - Earlier,
on the issue of repatriation to parent
department,
an
order
dated
06.08.2025
was
passed
by
S.S.P.
posting petitioner in the Civil Police
in pursuance of Judgment of High
Court
-
However,
later
on
the
impugned
order
dated
10.09.2025
was
passed
again
indicating
petitioner being posted in the Civil
Police
from
U.P.
112
-
Legality
challenged :

Held
:
Petitioner's
grievance
for
repatriation to parent department has
already been fulfilled. In case petitioner is
aggrieved by his posting in Jhansi Region
and wishes to remain in Bulandshahr
Region, liberty is granted to petitioner to
file fresh representation before opposite
party no.2 i.e. Deputy Inspector General
Police
(Karmik)
U.P.
or
any
other
competent authority. In case such a
representation is preferred within a period
of two weeks from today, the same shall
be considered and decided expeditiously
by a reasoned and speaking order within
a period of four weeks. [Para 6] (E-1)

List of Acts
Regulation of Dial 112.

List of Keywords
Transfer;
Repatriation;
Parent
department; Competent authority; Fresh
representation.

Case Arising From
Transfer of petitioner from U.P. 112,
Bulandshahr to Jhansi Region
10 All. Kuldeep Vs. State Of U.P.
957
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : M.P. Raju
Advs. For the Respondent : C.S.C.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish
Mathur, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for
petitioner and learned State Counsel
appearing on behalf of the opposite
parties.

2.
Present
petition
under
Article 226 of Constitution of India
has been filed challenging order
dated 10.09.2025 whereby petitioner
has been transferred from U.P. 112,
Bulandshahr to Jhansi Region.

3.
Learned
counsel
for
petitioner
submits
that
earlier
petitioner had filed WRIT - A No. -
2729 of 2025 seeking repatriation to
his parent department being Civil
Police from Dial 112. The said
petition was disposed of vide order
dated
10.03.2025
directing
the
competent
authority
to
consider
petitioner's grievance. In pursuance
thereof, an order dated 06.08.2025
was passed by Senior Superintendent
of
Police,
Bulandshahr
posting
petitioner
in
the
Civil
Police
whereafter impugned order has been
passed again indicating petitioner
being posted in the Civil Police from
U.P. 112.

4. It is submitted that once an
order had already been passed on
06.08.2025, there was no occasion
for opposite parties to have passed
fresh order dated 10.09.2025 on the
same aspect. It is also submitted that
in terms of Regulations of Dial 112,
petitioner is required to be posted in
Bulandshahr itself.

5. Learned State Counsel has
been provided written instructions
dated 09.10.2025, which are taken
on record and as per which it is
submitted
that
in
pursuance
of
direction
issued
by
this
Court
earlier, Senior Superintendent of
Police,
Bulandshahr,
had
passed
order dated 06.08.2025 but the same
was
without
jurisdiction
since
appropriate orders were required to
be
passed
by the Establishment
Board and such an error has been
corrected by impugned order.

6.
Upon
consideration
of
submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and perusal of
material on record, it is thus evident
that
petitioner's
grievance
for
repatriation to parent department has
already
been
fulfilled.
In
case
petitioner is aggrieved by his posting
in Jhansi Region and wishes to
remain
in
Bulandshahr
Region,
liberty is granted to petitioner to file
fresh representation before opposite
party no.2 i.e. Deputy Inspector
General Police (Karmik) U.P. or any
other competent authority. In case
such a representation is preferred
within a period of two weeks from
today, the same shall be considered
and
decided
expeditiously
by
a
reasoned and speaking order within a
period of four weeks from receipt of
representation of petitioner along
with a certified copy of this order.

7. With aforesaid direction,
the petition stands finally disposed
of.
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 958
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ - A No. 23812 of 2003

Anjani Kumar Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Jay Prakash Gupta, V.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Effect of being minor at the time of appointment
on the regularization, particularly when no
charge
of
concealment
or
fraud
or
misrepresentation
was
leveled
to
obtain
appointment.

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Cancellation
of
regularization - Petitioner was appointed
as Forester in 1991 and regularized on
26.03.2002
-
Regularization
was
cancelled on the ground that petitioner
was below 18 years on the date of
appointment - Validity challenged - No
charge of practicing concealment or fraud
or
misrepresentation
to
obtain
appointment was leveled - Effect :

Held : Bearing in mind that the writ petitioner is
working
since
1991,
his
services
stood
regularized on 26.03.2002 and by virtue of the
cancellation of the regularization order dated
07.05.2003, he was accorded interim protection
by this Court on 14.07.2003 and he continues to
work till date and there is nothing on record to
show that there is anything adverse, thus,
applying the principles of equity, writ petition is
being decided in the following terms: (a) the
order
dated
07.05.2003
passed
by
the
Conservator of Forest, Varanasi Circle, Varanasi
cancelling
the
regularization
of
the
writ
petitioner dated 26.03.2002 on the post of
Forester is set aside; (b) The order dated
26.06.2002 regularizing the services of the writ
petitioner is restored. [Para 14] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Satya Narain
(Driver) and others, 2005 (5) AWC 4843; Ram
Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
2023 (12) ADJ 224; Mohd. Ashique v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and others, 2025 (4) ADJ 396 -
referred to.

List of Acts
U.P.
Reorganization
Act,
2000;
U.P.
Regularization of Daily Wages Appointment on
Group 'C' Posts (Outside Purview of Uttar
Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules,
1998.

List of Keywords
Regularization; Cancellation; Regular employee;
deficiency;
Adverse;
Eligibility;
Suitability;
Concealment;
Fraud;
Misrepresentation;
Consequential benefits.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 07.05.20023 cancelling
regularization of petitioner.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Jay Prakash Gupta, V.
K. Singh
Advs. For the Respondent : Rahul Malviya, S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Jay Prakash Gupta,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel,
who appears for State-respondents.

2. The counsel for the rival parties
have made a joint statement that they do
not propose to file any further affidavits