The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has dismissed a criminal PIL that sought a fresh, independent investigation into alleged irregularities in the recruitment to 728 posts of Lab Assistant (Rural) in Uttar Pradesh’s Medical and Health Department. The Court said that, about 18 years after the selection, it would not be appropriate to order further investigation or re-investigation.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra held that the PIL did not follow the mandatory requirements of the High Court Rules. Because the petitioner is a retired employee, the Court imposed no costs.
Background
The petitioner, Sudama Ram, retired as a Senior Assistant from the Medical Directorate at Swasthya Bhawan, Lucknow. He said he had no personal interest in the matter. He sought cancellation of the CBCID closure report dated 12 July 2018, a fresh and impartial investigation into the recruitment, and action against the Investigating Officer and the officials allegedly involved. The written examination for the posts was held on 30 August 2009.
An FIR in Case Crime No. 0005 of 2017 under Sections 409 and 420 IPC was registered at Police Station Husainganj, Lucknow, on 4 January 2017. The investigation ended in a final report dated 12 July 2018.
Arguments
Anurag Verma, AGA-I, appearing for the State, pointed out that a Division Bench had already considered the matter in Manoj Srivastava v. State of U.P. (Special Appeal No. 695 of 2012). That appeal was dismissed on 4 October 2021, and the Bench had found nothing on record to pursue the inquiry into the loss of OMR sheets any further. Verma also produced the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBCID, Lucknow’s order of 30 April 2024 accepting the final report. He said neither the aggrieved person nor the present PIL had challenged that order.
Relying on Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P., Verma argued that only the court concerned can direct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. Citing State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, he submitted that a writ court is not the appropriate forum to seek initiation of an investigation, and that a PIL based on mere allegations and half-baked truth should not be entertained.
P.S. Bajpai, appearing for the petitioner, said the petitioner was not aggrieved by the closure report. He wanted to show the fraud allegedly committed by the Department in the selection, which he said was still continuing.
Court’s Findings
On the scope of criminal PILs, the Court observed that “if any PIL is filed in a criminal matter, the scope is limited to the extent that if the issue in question is related to any reforms in the criminal administration of justice, the mechanism of such system or to regulate the agencies which discharge their obligation and responsibilities under criminal administration of justice.”
It noted that the selection was completed long ago and the selected candidates had joined their posts. It held:
“So after about 18 years of the selection in question, it would not be appropriate to direct for further investigation or re-investigation”
The Bench noted that the PIL did not mention the 2021 Division Bench judgment, which, as far as the State knew, had not been challenged before the Supreme Court. Since the issue had already been considered in Manoj Srivastava, the Court held that the petitioner’s averment in his supplementary affidavit, that there was no authoritative pronouncement on the subject, “would be treated as false and misconceived.”
The Court found that the petitioner had not followed Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which requires a PIL petitioner to disclose his credentials fairly and to state and enclose any judicial pronouncement on the subject. It concluded that “the present PIL (Criminal) is not only misconceived, but the same has been filed for ulterior reasons.”
Outcome
The Court dismissed the PIL without costs, noting that the petitioner is a retired Senior Assistant of the Medical Department.
Case Title: Sudama Ram v. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health Services, Lucknow and 7 Others
Case No.: Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No. 14 of 2026
Bench: Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
Date: November 5, 2026
