Abhinitam Upadhyay Vs. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court through its Registrar General

The Supreme/Apex court has dismissed the petition filed by a judicial officer challenging the judgment of Allahabad High Court wherein the Apex court had dismissed writ petition of the petition seeking notional promotion (i.e. a promotion given to a government employee in unusual circumstances. of a circumstance that one cannot claim as one's own) to the position of Additional District Judge.


Facts And Issue

This writ petition has been filed to seek notional promotion to the post of Additional District

Judge (stop-gap arrangement) and approached the High Court under Rule 22(3) of Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rule, 1975. He requested this promotion on a stop-gap grounds with effect from 18.02.2016, when it was reportedly awarded to petitioner's juniors.

As found that the petitioner made the same prayer in his previous petition Writ A No. 9146 of

2019 (Abhinitam Upadhyay Vs. Registrar General, Allahabad High Court). The prayer in this

writ petition was not pressed there, instead the Court was asked to direct the respondent to

provide him regular promotions. From the time it was given to his junior officers,the petitioner has been given regular promotions. Due to the pending investigation, regular promotion was not given to the petitioner at the time, but once the petitioner was exonerated, regular promotion was given to the petitioner from the date it was allowed to the persons junior to him.

The High Court stated, citing the facts that the prayer for grant of notional promotion on

stop-gap arrangement with effect from 18.02.2016 cannot be entertained as it was not previously pressed in Writ A No. 9146 of 2019 preferred by the petitioner and decided by this Court on 31.05.2019.

The petitioner had petitioned the Supreme Court after being aggrieved by the ruling of the

Allahabad High Court.


Judgment of Supreme Court

The Apex Court stated that as a result, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction to grant him notional promotion as Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) on a stop gap basis, as well as regular promotion as ADJ w.e.f. the date on which his juniors have been promoted, with all consequential benefits.

At the very beginning, the counsel for the petitioner asserts that he is not seeking a notional

promotion to ADJ (Fast Track Court), and that his prayer in the writ petition is limited to normal promotion to the post of ADJ w.e.f. the date juniors to him were promoted on the same date.

The second writ petition, for the prayer earlier not pressed, would not be maintainable in light of the facts kept in front of the court.

Thus, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed accordingly.

And it was made clear by the Apex Court, however, that if an application to modify the order

entered in the first writ petition is pending, this order will have no bearing on the

aforementioned.



This article is written by Jyoti Choudhary of UWSL Karnavati University,Gandhinagar, Gujarat.

Recent Posts

See All

Heading – John Ryland and John Horrocks vs Thomas Fletcher Citation –John Ryland and John Horrocks vs Thomas Fletcher (1868) UKHL 1, (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 Names Of Judges Involved in the Judgment – L