# Mukesh Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1778
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-21
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 511 of 2026
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mukesh-kumar-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54722
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

1778 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 4 ILRA 1778
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 511 of 2026

Mukesh Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
(a) Does the simultaneous acquisition of two educational credentials during the same academic session
automatically invalidate a government appointment, in the absence of an explicit statutory embargo or rule
prohibiting it?
(b) Can a long-standing public service appointment (spanning nearly 29 years) be dismantled on technical,
structural timeline discrepancies when there is no explicit finding of fraud, deceit, or forged documentation?
(c) Is a summary termination order issued purely on the basis of show-cause notices legally sustainable when
statutory rules explicitly mandate a formal departmental inquiry?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar Sharma, completed his High School in 1991, pursued Class
XI in 1992-93, obtained a Certificate in Physical Education from Maharashtra during the 1993-94 academic
session, and passed his Intermediate Examination in 1995. Following a GO and a subsequent judicial directive
in a 1997 writ petition, he was appointed as an untrained Assistant Teacher on 24.04.1997. He successfully
completed the mandatory in-service trained Basic Teachers course in 1999, was granted a regular trained
teacher pay scale in 2000, and eventually rose to the position of Headmaster at a Composite School in District
Gautam Buddha Nagar. He rendered nearly 29 years of continuous, unblemished service.
Based on complaints regarding his credentials, the department conducted formal inquiries in 2020 and 2024.
Both independent inquiry committees found the complaints to be completely unsubstantiated, and his salary,
which had been briefly stopped, was restored. In 2025, another complaint was filed with the District
Magistrate, prompting a fresh inquiry. Despite an interim order from the High Court on 16.10.2025, instructing
the department to pay his current salary and conclude the inquiry through due legal process, the Basic
Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) issued an order on 11.12.2025, terminating his services without a formal departmental
inquiry.
B. In the absence of any statutory embargo, simultaneous pursuit of courses cannot constitute a
valid ground for disqualification. Simultaneous acquisition of qualifications at the relevant point
of time was permissible and cannot, by itself, render an appointment illegal. (Para 44)

The fulcrum of the impugned action rests upon the allegation of simultaneous acquisition of two qualifications.
However, neither in the impugned order nor in the course of arguments has any statutory provision, rule, or
regulation been brought to the notice of this Court which proscribes a candidate from pursuing or obtaining
two qualifications in the same academic session. (Para 43)

If the acquisition of two degrees in the same academic session may appear improbable, such
improbability, in the absence of cogent material and due process culminating in annulment of
such degrees by a competent authority, cannot furnish a lawful basis for invalidating an
4 All. Mukesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1779
appointment. In the present case, it is an admitted position that none of the petitioner's educational
qualifications have been set aside or invalidated. (Para 45)

C. Long continuance in service, coupled with the absence of fraud or deceit, operates as a
significant equitable consideration against annulment of appointment. Long standing
appointment should not be disturbed in absence of any fraud. The impugned order is conspicuously
bereft of any categorical finding of fraud, misrepresentation, or submission of forged documents on the part
of the petitioner. In the absence of such a foundational finding, the drastic consequence of termination,
particularly after the petitioner has rendered nearly three decades of continuous and unblemished service, is
wholly disproportionate and legally unsustainable. (Para 46, 47)

D. The course of action is in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. There is
significant procedural infirmity vitiating the impugned order. No regular departmental inquiry, as mandated
under the Service Rules, 1973 r/w the Rules, 1999, has been conducted. The termination has been effected
merely on the basis of notices, without formulation of charges, without adducing evidence, and without
affording the petitioner a meaningful and effective opportunity of hearing. (Para 48)

Petitioner's educational credentials, namely, the High School Certificate (1991), Certificate of Physical
Education (1993-94), and Intermediate Certificate (1995), continue to hold the field, having never been
annulled or invalidated by any competent authority. In such circumstances, impugned order dated 11.12.2025
cannot be sustained. (Para 49)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Anita Rani Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Special Appeal No. 646 of 2026, decided on 27.01.2026 (Para 27)
2. Board of Management, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur Vs. Dr.
Samir Kumar Biswas and another, Special Appeal No. 91 of 2026 (Para 27)
3. Kuldeep Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2016) 3 SCC 521 (Para 31)
4. Basic Education Board, U.P., Prayagraj and another Vs. Lakshmi Shankar Yadav, Special Appeal No. 37 of
2022 (Para 32)
5. Board of Basic Education and another Vs. Arvind Prakash Dwivedi and others, Special Appeal Defective No.
898 of 2020 (Para 44)
6. State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4 (Para 47)
7. State of U.P. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 (Para 48)

List of Acts
 U.P. Basic Education (Staff) Service Rules, 1973; U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999.

List of Keywords
service, long continuance, acquisition, two degrees, misrepresentation, fraud, statutory, embargo,
disqualification.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate
For Respondent(s): C.S.C., Shashi Prakash Rai

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
1780 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Aditendra, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Mr. Shashi Prakash Rai, learned counsel for respondent-BSA and learned
Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The writ petition has been instituted, inter alia, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for
quashing the order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gautam Buddha Nagar,
whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated.

3. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as Headmaster of Composite
Vidyalaya, Jewar, Development Block Jewar, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.

4. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to ensure payment of his
regular monthly salary, along with arrears of salary w.e.f. June, 2025 till date, within a stipulated
period.

5. Placing the aforesaid facts on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner possesses the following educational qualifications:-

 "(i) The petitioner appeared in the High School Certificate Examination in the year 1991
from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, as a student of Krishna
Sahai Gokul Chandra Inter College, Dhanauri Khurd, District Bulandshahr.

 (ii) The petitioner pursued his studies in Class XI during the academic session 1992-93
from Adarsh Inter College, Ranhera.

 (iii) The petitioner obtained a Certificate in Physical Education during the academic
session 1993-94 from Bharati Sharirik Shikshan Mahavidyalaya, Hanuman Vyayam Nagar,
Amravati, Maharashtra.

 (iv) Thereafter, the petitioner appeared as a regular student in the Intermediate Certificate
Examination for the academic session 1994-95 from the Board of High School and Intermediate
Education, Uttar Pradesh, being a student of Adarsh Inter College, Ranhera."

6. Pursuant to the Government Order dated 23.03.1995, which provided for the
appointment of candidates possessing a Certificate in Physical Education as untrained teachers with
a stipulation for imparting in-service training post-appointment, the State authorities issued an
advertisement dated 27.12.1996 inviting applications from eligible candidates for such
appointments. The petitioner, being duly eligible, submitted his application in response thereto.

7. However, as no interview call letter was issued to him, the petitioner was constrained to
file Writ Petition No. 11804 of 1997 (Rajesh Singh and two others vs. BSA, Bulandshahr and
others), wherein this Honble Court, vide interim order dated 04.04.1997, directed consideration
of his candidature. In compliance thereof, the petitioner's case was considered by the Basic Shiksha
Adhikari, Bulandshahr.
4 All. Mukesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1781
8. The petitioner was issued an appointment letter dated 24.04.1997, whereby he was
appointed as an untrained Assistant Teacher and posted at Prathmik Vidyalaya, Jewar, District
Bulandshahr. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner duly joined his duties on 25.04.1997.

9. The appointment so granted to the petitioner was as an untrained Assistant Teacher on
payment of a consolidated honorarium of Rs. 850/- per month. Subsequently, the petitioner was
directed to undergo an in-service training course for Basic Teachers at the District Institute of
Education and Training, Bulandshahr, which he successfully completed in the year 1999.

10. On the basis of the aforesaid training qualification, the petitioner was granted the
regular pay scale applicable to a trained teacher with effect from 08.03.2000.

11. The petitioner has been working continuously and regularly since 08.03.2000 as a
trained Assistant Teacher and has been drawing the pay scale applicable to regularly appointed
trained teachers. Initially, the petitioner was serving in District Bulandshahr; however, upon the
creation of District Gautam Budhh Nagar as a separate district, the Development Block Jewar came
to be included within its territorial limit. Consequently, the services of the petitioner stood allocated
to District Gautam Budhh Nagar, where he has been continuing in service thereafter.

12. On the basis of certain complaints, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gautam Budhh Nagar,
vide order dated 22.07.2020, constituted a two-member inquiry committee to conduct an inquiry
into the educational certificates of the petitioner and, simultaneously, directed stoppage of payment
of his salary.

13. Notices were issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted his reply along with
relevant documents. Upon due consideration of the same, the inquiry committee submitted its
report dated 03.03.2021, recording a finding that the complaints against the petitioner were
unsubstantiated.

14. Accordingly, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gautam Budhh Nagar, vide order dated
16.03.2021, restored the payment of salary to the petitioner.

15. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari again issued a notice dated 24.05.2024 requiring the
petitioner to submit his reply on or before 27.05.2024 with regard to the complaints concerning his
educational qualifications. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.06.2024, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari
constituted an inquiry committee comprising the Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Jewar, and the Khand
Shiksha Adhikari, Bisrakh to conduct an inquiry and submit its report.

16. The said committee submitted its report dated 27.07.2024, recording a finding that the
complaints against the petitioner were unsubstantiated, and further noting that the earlier inquiry
had also returned the same conclusion.

17. Subsequently, a complaint was again made before the District Magistrate, Gautam
Budhh Nagar, in the year 2025, pursuant to which the Vice Principal, District Institute of Education
and Training, Dankaur, District Gautam Budhh Nagar, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. The
1782 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Inquiry Officer fixed 07.02.2025 as the date of hearing. The petitioner duly participated in the
proceedings; however, the complainant remained absent.

18. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 04.04.2025, recording that the
petitioner had obtained the Certificate of Physical Education from Maharashtra during the
academic session 1993-94, which stood duly verified from the available records and documents.
The report, however, also noted that the petitioner had passed the Intermediate Certificate
Examination in the year 1994.

19. The aforesaid inquiry report was forwarded by the District Magistrate, Gautam Budhh
Nagar, to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gautam Budhh Nagar, for further action. In pursuance
thereof, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari issued a notice dated 14.07.2025 to the petitioner, to which
submitted his reply on 28.07.2025 along with relevant documents.

20. Simultaneously, another notice dated 14.07.2025 was issued directing stoppage of
payment of the petitioners salary. Thereafter, a further notice dated 08.08.2025 was issued by the
Basic Shiksha Adhikari requiring the petitioner to submit his response within a period of three
days.

21. In compliance, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 11.08.2025 in
response to the notice dated 08.08.2025, enclosing his educational certificates and mark sheets. He
also submitted a further representation dated 19.08.2025 in response to the notice dated 14.07.2025
concerning stoppage of his salary.

22. The petitioner has not been paid any salary since June, 2025. Despite the fact that the
petitioner duly responded to each notice issued by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, his salary continued
to be withheld and no final order was passed in the matter. Thereafter, another notice dated
17.09.2025 was issued, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 25.09.2025.

23. Aggrieved by the continued non-payment of salary and the notices dated 14.07.2025
and 17.09.2025, the petitioner filed Writ-A No. 15556 of 2025 (Mukesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of
U.P. and others), wherein this Honble Court granted an interim order dated 16.10.2025. By the
said order, the District Basic Education Officer was directed to complete the inquiry in accordance
with law and to take a final decision within a period of two months after affording an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner. The Court further directed that the petitioner be paid his salary for the
current month and continue to be paid salary thereafter until a final decision in the inquiry is taken.

24. Despite the order passed by this Honble Court, the salary of the petitioner was not
paid. Instead, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari proceeded to pass an order dated 11.12.2025 terminating
the services of the petitioner on the ground that his initial appointment was invalid.

25. The impugned termination order dated 11.12.2025 is founded on two principal grounds.
Firstly, it records that the petitioner passed the Intermediate Certificate Examination in the year
1995, whereas, according to the record, he had already passed the said examination in the year
1994. Secondly, it alleges that the petitioner pursued and completed two regular courses
4 All. Mukesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1783
simultaneously during the same academic session 1993-94, namely, the Certificate of Physical
Education and the Intermediate Certificate Examination in the year 1994.

26. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed in
gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that repeated complaints were
made against the petitioner, which were duly inquired into on earlier occasions, and each time the
allegations were found to be unsubstantiated. However, in complete disregard of the findings
recorded in the earlier inquiry reports, the impugned order has been passed, rendering the same
arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

27. The petitioner has rendered unblemished service for the past 29 years, during the said
period there has neither been any complaint against his conduct, nor any allegation that the
educational certificates on the basis of which he was appointed are forged. In such circumstances,
the impugned order is wholly unsustainable in law and is in clear violation of the principles laid
down by this Hon'ble Court in Anita Rani vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Special Appeal No. 646 of
2026, decided on 27.01.2026), as well as in Board of Management, Chandra Shekhar Azad
University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur vs. Dr. Samir Kumar Biswas and another
(Special Appeal No. 91 of 2026).

28. In Anita Rani (supra), the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court observed that where
the petitioner therein had rendered service for a considerable period of seven years, and there was
no finding of fraud or manipulation on her part in securing the appointment, the same could not be
cancelled.

29. While deciding the matter in Board of Management, Chandra Shekhar Azad
University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur vs. Dr. Samir Kumar Biswas and another
(Special Appeal No. 91 of 2026), the Division Bench of this Honble Court took note of the
allegation that the petitioners therein were not entitled to appointment on the post in question as
they had availed the benefit of belonging to a Scheduled Caste in their home State, which was not
recognized in the State of Uttar Pradesh. However, in the absence of any finding of fraud or
misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners in securing their appointment, the Court upheld their
appointments.

30. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that there exists no statutory
prohibition against obtaining two certificates in the same academic year. Therefore, the ground
taken in the impugned order to the contrary is wholly misconceived, illegal, and unsustainable in
the eyes of law.

31. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kuldeep Kumar Pathak vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2016) 3
SCC 521, submits that the respondents have failed to place on record any statutory provision or
regulation prohibiting simultaneous appearance in two examinations. Consequently, the
appointment of the petitioner could not have been cancelled on this ground, and the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.
1784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
32. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Basic Education Board, U.P., Prayagraj and another
vs. Lakshmi Shankar Yadav (Special Appeal No. 37 of 2022), wherein it has been observed that
although it may appear improbable as to how a person could obtain two degrees simultaneously,
such improbability by itself cannot constitute a valid ground to annul both the degrees. The Court
held that there must exist cogent material and due process, including affording an opportunity of
hearing to the holder of such degrees, before annulling either one or both of them.

33. In the said case, since one of the degrees relied upon by the petitioner for selection to
the post in question had admittedly not been cancelled, the Division Bench upheld the validity of
the appointment and held that the same could not be annulled merely on the ground that two
degrees had been obtained simultaneously.

34. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order has been
passed without conducting a regular departmental inquiry as mandated under the U.P. Basic
Education (Staff) Service Rules, 1973, read with the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1999. The termination of the petitioners services has been effected merely on the
basis of issuance of notices, which do not satisfy the procedural requirements prescribed under law.

35. It is contended that in the absence of a duly conducted disciplinary inquiry, affording
full opportunity of hearing and adherence to the prescribed procedure, the impugned order is in
clear violation of the principles of natural justice and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

36. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no dispute with respect
to the authenticity of the petitioners educational qualifications, namely, the High School
Certificate obtained in the year 1991, the Certificate of Physical Education obtained during the
academic session 1993-94, and the Intermediate Certificate obtained in the year 1995. The said
certificates have neither been cancelled nor declared invalid by any competent authority and
continue to hold the field.

37. In such circumstances, it is contended that there was no occasion or justification for
initiating or taking any adverse action against the petitioner, particularly when the very
qualifications on the basis of which the petitioner was appointed remain undisputed and valid.

38. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. It is contended that in the course of inquiry, it has
been found that the petitioner had pursued and completed two regular courses during the same
academic session 1993-94, namely, the Certificate of Physical Education and the Intermediate
Examination (1994), which fact was not disclosed by him at the time of seeking appointment.

39. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner had initially
submitted a Transfer Certificate issued from Kisan Sahai Gokulchand, Inter College, Dhanauri
Khurd, for the purpose of seeking admission in Kisan Inter College, Barsol, from where he is stated
to have passed Class XI during the academic session 1991-92. However, in response to the notice,
4 All. Mukesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1785
the petitioner took a different stand by asserting that he had passed Class XI during the academic
session 1992-93 from Adarsh Inter College, Ranhera, District Gautam Budhh Nagar.

40. It is further contended that, as per the report dated 24.01.2025 received from Adarsh
Inter College, Ranhera, the petitioner had neither taken admission in the said institution nor was he
enrolled there during the period 1988 to 1993.

41. On the basis of the aforesaid material, it is submitted that the petitioner had appeared in
two examinations as a regular candidate in the same year, namely, the Certificate of Physical
Education and the Intermediate Examination in the year 1994, and thereafter again appeared in the
Intermediate Examination in the year 1995. It is thus contended that by concealing these facts and
by simultaneously pursuing two courses, the petitioner secured his initial appointment. It is further
urged that for the purpose of subsequent benefits as a trained teacher, the petitioner relied upon his
Intermediate mark sheet of the year 1995.

42. In view of the aforesaid, it is contended that the petitioner secured his initial
appointment by concealing material facts, particularly the fact of having appeared in and passed
two examinations in the same year. Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this
Honble Court.

43. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon a careful scrutiny
of the record, this Court finds that the fulcrum of the impugned action rests upon the allegation of
simultaneous acquisition of two qualifications. However, neither in the impugned order nor in the course
of arguments has any statutory provision, rule, or regulation been brought to the notice of this Court which
proscribes a candidate from pursuing or obtaining two qualifications in the same academic session.

44. The legal position in this regard stands authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Kuldeep Kumar Pathak (supra), wherein it has been unequivocally held that in the absence of any
statutory embargo, simultaneous pursuit of courses cannot constitute a valid ground for disqualification.
The said principle has been echoed by the Division Bench of this Court in Board of Basic Education and
another vs. Arvind Prakash Dwivedi and others (Special Appeal Defective No. 898 of 2020), holding
that simultaneous acquisition of qualifications at the relevant point of time was permissible and cannot, by
itself, render an appointment illegal.

45. Further, in Basic Education Board, U.P., Prayagraj and another vs. Lakshmi Shankar
Yadav (Special Appeal No. 37 of 2022), the Division Bench has lucidly observed that even if the
acquisition of two degrees in the same academic session may appear improbable, such improbability, in
the absence of cogent material and due process culminating in annulment of such degrees by a competent
authority, cannot furnish a lawful basis for invalidating an appointment. In the present case, it is an
admitted position that none of the petitioner's educational qualifications have been set aside or invalidated.

46. This Court also finds that the impugned order is conspicuously bereft of any categorical finding
of fraud, misrepresentation, or submission of forged documents on the part of the petitioner. In the absence of
such a foundational finding, the drastic consequence of termination, particularly after the petitioner has
rendered nearly three decades of continuous and unblemished service, is wholly disproportionate and legally
1786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
unsustainable. The Division Bench of this Court in Anita Rani (supra) has held that long continuance in
service, coupled with the absence of fraud or deceit, operates as a significant equitable consideration against
annulment of appointment.

47. This Court finds that long standing appointment should not be disturbed in absence of any fraud.
The aforesaid has been held by Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC
4, wherein the caste certificate of the petitioner was questioned, however, on the aforesaid principle, the
appointment of the petitioner was not disturbed as the certificate of the petitioner therein was accepted with
open eyes by the respondents.

48. Equally significant is the procedural infirmity vitiating the impugned order. It is evident that no
regular departmental inquiry, as mandated under the U.P. Basic Education (Staff) Service Rules, 1973 read
with the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, has been conducted. The
termination has been effected merely on the basis of notices, without formulation of charges, without
adducing evidence, and without affording the petitioner a meaningful and effective opportunity of hearing.
Such a course of action is in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, as expounded by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772.

49. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner's educational credentials, namely, the High School
Certificate (1991), Certificate of Physical Education (1993-94), and Intermediate Certificate (1995), continue
to hold the field, having never been annulled or invalidated by any competent authority. In such
circumstances, the substratum of the impugned action is rendered wholly untenable.

50. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is constrained to hold that the impugned order
dated 11.12.2025 is vitiated by arbitrariness, non-application of mind, procedural impropriety, and violation
of settled principles of law. The same, therefore, cannot be sustained.

51. The impugned order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, District- Gautam
Budhh Nagar, is hereby quashed.

52. The writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1786
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ A No. 4116 of 2019

Kunwar Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents