The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government, the Assembly speaker, and the Assembly Secretariat to file responses to a petition challenging the appointment and continued service of the Assembly’s principal secretary, Pradeep Kumar Dubey.
On Friday, a vacation bench consisting of Justice R S Chauhan and Justice D C Samant ordered the respondents to submit either short or detailed counter-affidavits before the next hearing. The court scheduled the matter for July 6, noting that it will be treated as a fresh case on that date.
The legal challenge, which seeks a writ of quo warranto to question the authority under which the 68-year-old Dubey holds office, was filed by former Assembly information officer Karmesh Pratap Singh.
Challenged Appointment Timeline And Rules
According to the petition, Dubey’s initial appointment in 2009 and his ongoing tenure violate constitutional provisions and statutory guidelines. The plea highlights the Assembly Secretariat Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules of 1974, which mandate a maximum age limit of 52 years for appointments to the relevant category of posts. The petitioner claims Dubey had already exceeded this age limit at the time of his appointment.
The petition states that Dubey retired voluntarily from the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service on January 13, 2009, and was appointed as the principal secretary of parliamentary affairs that same day. Six days later, on January 19, 2009, he was given charge of the principal secretary position within the Assembly Secretariat.
Furthermore, the petition alleges that the appointment occurred without any public advertisement, competitive selection process, consultation with the Public Service Commission, or the necessary constitutional approvals. The legal challenge also questions subsequent amendments made to the service rules, various extensions of service, and Dubey’s continued employment beyond the age of 65.
Defense Raises Preliminary Maintainability Objections
During the hearing, Abhinav Trivedi, the counsel representing the Assembly Secretariat and the speaker, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. Trivedi argued that the principal secretary does not hold the type of public office required for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto, asserting that the position does not involve sovereign functions. He requested additional time to submit a counter-affidavit on behalf of his clients.
In contrast, the petitioner’s legal counsel, Chet Narayan Singh and Balkeshwar Srivastava, appeared virtually from New Delhi to press for an urgent hearing. They argued that Dubey continues to occupy the office and exercise official powers without any lawful authority.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the High Court bench granted the requested time for the respondents to file their replies.
