- (1.) Heard Mr. S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sameer Kalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the Union of India as well as learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
(2.) The petitioner has sought following reliefs: "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.6.2015 passed by the Government of India, decision of the State Advisory Committee dated 17.8.2015 (circulated vide Office Memorandum dated 20.8.2015), order dated 24.8.2015 passed by the Government of India, order dated 2.9.2015 passed by the Government of India and the order dated 9.6.2015 passed by the Government of India, as are contained in Annexure No.-1, Annexure No.-2, Annexure No.-3 Annexure No.-4 and Annexure No.-5 (so far as it relates to the petitioner) respectively; (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents not to give effect to the impugned order dated 25.6.2015 passed by the Government of India, decision of the State Advisory Committee dated 17.8.2015 (circulated vide Office Memorandum dated 20.8.2015), order dated 24.8.2015 passed by the Government of India, order dated 2.9.2015 passed by the Government of India and the order dated 9.6.2015 passed by the Government of India, as are contained in Annexure No.-1, Annexure No.-2, Annexure No.-3, Annexure No.-4 and Annexure No.-5 (so far as it relates to the petitioner) respectively; (iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to allow the petitioner to work on his post in the State of U.P. and to pay him salary for the post regularly with all consequential benefits."
(3.) Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, at the outset, has raised preliminary objection against the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that in the similar circumstances one Mr. Sitaram Gupta had sought the same relief in writ petition no.7640 (S/B) of 2016, this court declined to grant any such relief with the following observations: "9. Upon perusal of the record we find that the State Government has framed a policy to reconsider the matter of allocation particularly, of those persons, who owing to some administrative or legal reasons had not been finally allocated but, subsequently, the same has been confined to class III and class IV employees by the Advisory Committee. In view of the policy laid down by the Government, the petitioner being class-I employee is not covered under the said policy. 10. Since the matter of petitioner's allocation has become final under the judgment of Supreme Court, dismissing the Special Leave Petition, preferred by the petitioner, it is not apposite for this Court to interfere with the order impugned for one or other reasons. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter, in the result, writ petition stands dismissed.";