Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27371 of 2013 Petitioner :- Prof. Mujahid Beg Respondent :- Union Of India & 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.P.Mishra,Chandra Sekhar,Chandra Shekhar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Jyotsna Srivastava,Ritvik Upadhyaya,Shashank Shekhar Singh
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
1. Called in revise. None appeared to press this writ petition. Shri S. K. Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Shashank Shekhar Singh is present for respondents. In the circumstances, we ourselves have perused the record.
2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:
"(a) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case leading to the issuance of the letter dated 02.04.2013 and the Annexure attached thereto and quash the same to the extent that the same re-designated the readers appointed/promoted prior to 01.01.2006 as Associate Professor and also quash the Annexure attached to the letter dated 02.04.2013, conferring eligibility for their placing in PB IV with AGP of Rs. 9000/- with retrospective dates And (b) Issue writ, order and direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to consider only those appointee/promote readers for the post of professor who are appointed/promoted after 01.01.2006, while holding the Selection Committee as scheduled for 15.05.2013 or thereafter or making recommendation for such appointment and set aside the decision, if taken upon the eligibility of such promotes/appointees who are appointed/promoted before 01.01.2006, while making the recommendation for the appointment/promotion to the post of professor. "
3. We ourselves have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that petitioner is not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs as prayed for.
4. Moreover, it appears that either the cause of action no more survives or the petitioner has lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits and that is why, counsel for petitioner is absent.
5. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 Swati