Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37504 of 1998 Petitioner :- Shyam Lal Respondent :- Jt.Director Of Education & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Mohan Saggi,Prashant Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.D. Pandey,S.P. Singh
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Called in revise. None appeared on behalf of petitioner.
2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to make payment of salary to Shri Ola Nath Singh as Lecturer (Sanskrit) on the basis of fraudulent appointment said to have been made by the Manager under ltter dated 26th June, 1992.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to permit to this Ola Nath Singh or to Sri Om Prakash Singh to work as Lecturer on the basis of the fraudulent appointment order issued by the Manager respondent no. 3 nor payment of salary should be made in their favour.
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Education Authorities to initiate appropriate action against the Manager of the institution for making fraudulent appointment and submitting fraudulent salary bills in respect of Shri Ola nath Singh as well as Sri Om Prakash Singh and if need be to supercede the Management.
(iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents No. 1 and 2 to produce the order said to have been passed in favour of Sri Ola Nath Singh on the basis of order of Hon'ble High Court dated 20.7.1993 passed in Writ Petition No. 37414 of 1993 and to declare the same as null and void and inoperative in the eyes of law."
3. However, I 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 that 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 :- 27.4.2018 AK