Allahabad High Court Quarterly Digest [January-March 2026]

[NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM]Absence Of Written Tenancy Agreement Or Not Furnishing Particulars Of Tenancy Don't Bar Rent Authority Jurisdiction: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Canara Bank Branch Office and 1 other Versus Sri Ashok Kumar @ Heera Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 1 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 626 of 2024]Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 1The Allahabad High Court has held that under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, the rent authority has the jurisdiction to entertain landlord's application for eviction of tenant where no tenancy agreement has been executed and the landlord has also failed to furnish the particulars of tenancy.Referring to various provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held,“rent authority constituted under the provisions of the Act of 2021 has jurisdiction to entertain application filed by landlord in cases where tenancy agreement has not been executed, and landlord having failed to intimate particulars of tenancy to the authority.”Mere Incarceration In Criminal Case Without Conviction Can't Be Ground To Remove CISF Personnel From Service: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs C.g.o. Complax New Delhi and 4 others v. Vijay Kumar Pandey 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 2 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 384 of 2025]Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 2A division bench of the Allahabad High Court recently upheld the Single Judge order quashing termination order of a CISF Head Constable who was accused of murder and was incarcerated for a small period on grounds that disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated merely on grounds of his incarceration.The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Rajeev Bharti held,“we are of the opinion that there was absolutely no basis for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and issuance of chargesheet to the respondent/petitioner merely because of his incarceration in respect of a criminal case, nor was there any factual or legal basis for removing the applicant from service on the said count.”3 Aadhaar Cards Illegally Used To Withdraw Ration Of 697 Cardholders: Allahabad High Court Denies Relief On Cancellation Of Fair Price ShopCase Title: Smt. Shahin Begum and 9 others Versus State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 3 [WRIT - C No. - 37032 of 2019]Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 3the Allahabad High Court denied relief to a fair price shop license holder who was using 3 , to illegal withdraw ration of 697 ration cardholders as the petitioner could not demonstrate that ration was actually being distributed to 697 ration cardholders.While upholding the cancellation of petitioner's fair price shop license, Justice Arun Kumar held“it is evident that use of three Aadhaar cards to withdraw ration of 697 cardholders has not been reasonably explained by the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that 162 affidavits filed by the petitioner, accepting receipt of essential commodities from her, are from 697 cardholders, whose ration has been withdrawn by resorting to interpolation. Even though, 162 cardholders accept receipt of ration regularly, petitioner cannot be obliterated from showing that, the use of three Aadhaar Card numbers for 697 cardholders was not her own volition.”Experience Gained As Part-Time Instructor Can't Be Counted Towards Eligibility For Headmaster Post: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Km. Dimple Singh and 12 others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 4 [WRIT - A No. - 17615 of 2025]Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 4The Allahabad High Court has recently held that experience gained as part-time instructor is not equal to regular teacher's experience and such part-time service will not make candidate eligible for appointment to the post of Headmaster unless specifically provided in law.Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,“if the recruitment rules specifically require teaching experience as an Assistant Teacher in regular service, experience acquired merely as a part-time instructor lacking the attributes of permanency, administrative responsibility, and regular academic engagement cannot be treated as valid compliance with the eligibility criteria. To hold otherwise would amount to rewriting the rules, which is impermissible in law.”Inclusion In Waiting List Doesn't Create Indefeasible Right To Appointment: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Nitish Maurya and 4 others Versus State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 5 [WRIT - A No. - 7520 of 2025]Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 5The Allahabad High Court has recently reiterated that a wait list candidate has no absolute right for being considered for appointment and wait list cannot be for an indefinite period.Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held,“It is well settled that a person in waiting list has no absolute right for consideration to get appointed as well as that a waiting list cannot remain in existence for unlimited period or a...

Allahabad High Court Quarterly Digest [January-March 2026]

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags