Allahabad High Court
Dr Anurag Shukla vs State Of Up, And 6 Others on 6 November, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:196129
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 4119 of 2025
Dr Anurag Shukla
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up, And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Siddharth Khare
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Arti Raje, C.S.C., Gagan Mehta, Manoj Kumar Mishra, V.R. Tiwari
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Siddharth khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri V.R. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 and Ms. Arti Raje, learned counsel appearing for the Commission.
2. The petitioner and the respondent no. 7 have participated in a recruitment process initiated by the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Board through a notification dated 12.03.2025 for the post of Principal in large number of Degree Colleges affiliated to State University including Agra College, Agra. The petitioner was initially selected and joined on the post of Principal, Agra College, Agra, however, later on his appointment was cancelled and has approached this Court by way of filing Writ-A No. 19565 of 2024, however, it was dismissed, which is now been challenge by way of a Special Appeal No. 83 of 2025 and Special Appeal No. 91 of 2025 which is still pending.
3. Shri Khare submits that meanwhile, on an applicant of the respondent no. 7, his API score was reconsidered and a decision was taken that his API score was more than 500 and therefore, he was appointed as the Principal of Agra College. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that the aforesaid appointment of the respondent no. 7 was contrary to law and there was no power with the State Government to reconsider the API score of the respondent and by way of this present writ petition his appointment is now under challenge.
4. Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent by referring judgments passed in the case of N.C. Singhal Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1255, Khalid Hussain (Minor) Vs. Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Health Department, Madras and others reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2074, Kumari Chitra Ghosh and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1969 (2) Supreme Court Cases 228, submits that the petitioner being an unsuccessful candidate has no locus to challenge the appointment of the selected candidate i.e. the respondent no. 7.
5. In reply to the preliminary objection, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on The State of Haryana Vs. The Haryana Cooperative Transport Ltd and others reported in 1977 (1) SCC 271 that this writ petition may be considered as a petition to issue a writ of quo warranto.
6. Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent no. 7 has also opposed submissions of the petitioner on merit that the committee was constituted by the appointing authority and the petitioner has not able to show that the API score of the respondent no. 7 was less than 500 or wrongly determined.
7. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record.
8. It is undisputed that the petitioner's appointment was cancelled on the ground of having forged educational documents and a challenge to it was rejected by a reasoned judgment dated 27.01.2025 which still holds good. A challenge to it at the behest of the petitioner is still pending. Therefore, the petitioner is presently an unsuccessful candidate. At this stage, the Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7 has substance specially in the light of Kumari Chitra Ghosh (supra), Khalid Hussain (supra), and N.C. Singhal (supra). So far as the reliance placed by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner on The Haryana Cooperative Transport Ltd (supra) is concerned, the facts of the present case are distinguishable, since, the petitioner therein was not an unsuccessful candidate.
9. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that this writ is not maintainable at the behest of the petitioner at this stage.
10. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) November 6, 2025 A. V. Singh