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


Sanjay Kumar Shukla v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 10867 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 4237 (22 February 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.7

Civil Misc. Writ No. 10867 of 2005

Rakesh Kumar                                                      Petitioner


UPSRTC and others                                           Respondents.

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

           Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

            The case of the petitioner is that an advertisement was published by the respondents for inviting applications for the post of Conductor. The petitioner applied for the said post. Written examination was conducted on 22.5.2005 in pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement.  It is stated that a call letter was issued to the petitioner for appearing in the interview, which was scheduled to be held on 17.1.2006.

            The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner appeared in the before the Interview Committee and on the direction of respondent no.3, the Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Agra he was informed that he would be permitted to appear in the interview later on and information in this regard will be sent separately. He further submits that the interview has ended on 31.1.2006 but the respondents have not permitted the petitioner to appear in the interview.

              There is no material on record to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had appeared in the interview on 17.1.2006 in pursuance of the call letter dated 2.1.2006 or that he was informed by respondent no.3 that he would be interviewed later on.  The interview has already ended according to the own admission of the petitioner on 31.1.2006. He cannot now be interviewed at this stage in the circumstances.

      For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.

Dated 22.2.2006



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.