Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Om Prakash Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 69587 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 21481 (20 December 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69587 of 2006

Om Prakash Singh


State of U.P. and others

Counsel for the Petitioner Sri R.C. Chauhan

Counsel for the Respondents Standing Counsel

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J

Petitioner has approached this Court requesting therein that final selection list pursuant to the proceeding of the selection committee held on 11.09.2006 be quashed.

Brief background of the case is that petitioner claims that he was appointed as Insect Keeper and worked in year 2001 to 2002 regularly on daily wage basis. Petitioner has contended that while undertaking process of selection by Resuim Nideshalaya for appointment of Insect Keeper on regular basis, his earlier experience has been ignored and he has not at all been accorded preference and has not been selected, as such entire selection proceedings are liable to be quashed.

Sri R.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in all eventuality petitioner was entitled for preference as he had worked on earlier occasion as Insect Keeper and as said experience has been ignored as such selection proceedings is vitiated and same is liable to be quashed.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that question of preference arises when two incumbents are equally situated and here in the present case there is no question of preference, as it was open selection wherein petitioner and other candidates had appeared and wherein petitioner has failed to secure place for himself, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging is to the effect that petitioner has applied for consideration of his candidature for being appointed as Insect Keeper. In the selection proceedings so undertaken there is no question of according preference to on incumbent who has worked on daily wages basis, as there has been no provision  in this regard, Claim of and candidature of petitioner has been adverted to and dealt with in the same way and manner as other candidates has been looked into. Petitioner has appeared in the selection proceedings, taken his chance and thereafter once petitioner has failed in the process then relief which has been claimed by the petitioner cannot be accorded.

Apart from this in the present case as petitioner has questioned the selection proceedings without impleading selected candidates as party in the present case. Consequently, no relief can be accorded to the petitioner as such writ petition lacks substance and is dismissed.

Dated 20.12.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.