Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 53052 of 2003 Petitioner :- Ram Preetam Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.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:
“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned reversion order dated 18.11.2003, contained in Annexure No.1 which had been passed by the respondent no.2 against the petitioner with immediate effects.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, thereby commanding the opposite parties to regularise and confirm the petitioners' service on the post6 of Supervisor Kanoongo/ Rajasva Nirikshak forthwith without compelling him to go back to his original post of Lekhpal.
iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to count entire length of petitioner's service and the period of service as Rajsva Nirikshak for the purpose of seniority and consideration of confirmed promotion to the higher post of Nayab Tahsildar, and not to post any other candidate from the general category in place of the petitioner as he belongs to schedule caste category and cannot be replaced.
iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the opposite parties to consider the case of petitioner for his regularisation the post oif Rajasva Nirikshak within the perview of the U.P. Regulation of Adhoc promotion (on posts outside the perview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1988.
v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the opposite parties to pay entire salary to the petitioner without any break for the post of Rajasva Nirikshak till the final disposal of this writ petition.”
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 :- 24.8.2018 PS