Advocates:
['BIRENDRA PRATAP YADAV', '', 'KRISHNA KANT YADAV', 'C S C']

Court No. - 33

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1034 of 2022

Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Pratap Yadav,Krishna Kant

Yadav

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

List revised. No one is present for the petitioner to press this

petition. However, learned Standing Counsel for the State-

respondents is present.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer

to direct the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the

representation of the petitioner with regard to regularization on

Group-D post in the light of order dated 25.04.2018 passed by

this Court in Writ Petition No.14309 of 2007 (Badri Prasad and

others vs. State of U.P. and others).

Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions received

by him, submits that the claim of petitioner has already been

rejected by the order dated 25.01.2019. Even otherwise, the

present petition has been filed with the only prayer to decide the

representation, which is not maintainable. In support of his

contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in

the case of A.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. vs. G. Srinivas Reddy & Ors.

reported in AIR 2006 SC 1465, wherein it has been held that a

writ with the prayer to decide the representation is not

maintainable if there is no statutory provision for filing the

representation. Relevant part of the judgment of the Supreme

Court reads as under: -

"19. There are also several instances where unscrupulous petitioners with

the connivance of "pliable" authorities have misused the direction "to

consider" issued by court. We may illustrate by an example. A claim,

which is stale, time-barred or untenable, is put forth in the form of a

representation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the

representation within a reasonable time, the person making the

representation approaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to

direct the authority to "consider" and dispose of the representation. When

the court disposes of the petition with a direction to "consider", the

authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the court

directing him to "consider" the grant of relief. Instances are also not

wanting where authorities, unfamiliar with the process and practice

relating to writ proceedings and the nuances of judicial review, have

interpreted or understood the order "to consider" as directing grant of

relief sought in the representation and consequently granting reliefs which

otherwise could not have been granted. Thus, action of the authorities

granting undeserving relief, in pursuance of orders to "consider", may be

on account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they

should grant relief in view of the court's direction to "consider" the claim,

or on account of collusion/connivance between the person making the

representation and the authority deciding it. Representations of daily-

wagers seeking regularisation/absorption into regular service is a species

of cases, where there has been a large-scale misuse of the orders "to

consider"."

Reference may also be made to the judgement of this Court in

the case of Daya Shankar Pande vs. State of U.P. and others,

reported in 2001(1) AWC 671. Para 15 of the said judgment

reads as follows:-

"15.The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that against the

order passed by D.I.O.S. disapproving petitioner's appointment, the

petitioner has filed an appeal/representation on 16.3.1999 before the

Deputy Director of Education on 14.11.2000 and a direction be issued for

deciding the aforesaid appeal/representation. The argument is devoid of

any merit for two reasons. Firstly, Second Order under which the

appointments on short-term vacancies are made, do not provide for any

appeal/representation to the Deputy Director of Education or the Director

of Education. The provision of appeal was only in Fi