Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41370 of 2002 Petitioner :- Raj Mani Shukla Respondent :- University Of Allahabad And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Counsel for Respondent :- Ram Gopal Tripathi,S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Called in revise. None appeared to press this writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel is present for respondents. In the circumstances, I myself 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 record of the case and quashing the advertisement dated 18.4.2001, Annexure No. to the writ petition by which 8 posts of the Computer Operator was advertised, to the extent of one post in view of the claim of the petitioner raised in the writ petition and further selection proceedings in pursuance of that, i.e., the practical examination, held on 9.9.2002;
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed wit the selection at least against one post of the Computer Operator advertised by advertisement no. 2 of 2001, dated 18.4.2001 during the pendency of the claim of the petitioner for regularization/absorption of the petitioner;
(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation/absorption of the petitioner on the post of the Computer Operator sanctioned by the State Government by series of Government Orders for absorption of those working in the University against non-sanctioned posts within the stipulated period and the respondent authorities be directed to pay the salary of the petitioner on the principal of equal pay for equal work which the other similarly situated employees of the University are getting and the petitioner may be paid the regular salary accordingly;"
3. I myself 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 :- 27.2.2019 Siddhant Sahu