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


Bhagwan Das And Others v. District Judge, Azamgarh And Another - WRIT - A No. 36622 of 1995 [2007] RD-AH 13163 (31 July 2007)


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. 26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36622 of 1995

Bhagwan Das and others       Vs.         District Judge, Azamgarh and another


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  29735 of 1995

Bhagwan Das and others       Vs.         District Judge, Azamgarh and others


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34194 of 1995

Bhagwan Das and others       Vs.         District Judge, Azamgarh and another

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran

Selections were held in the year 1986 for appointment on six vacant class IV posts in the Judgeship of Azamgarh. Besides declaring a select list of six candidates, a waiting list of 43 candidates was prepared. After giving appointment to the selected candidates, from 1986 to 1990, 19 such other candidates who were placed in the waiting list have also been accommodated. Then on 26.10.1990, the waiting list was cancelled by the respondent-District Judge. Challenging the said order, writ petition no. 30407 of 1990 was filed, which was allowed vide Judgment and Order dated 23.7.1992. The petitioners who claim themselves to be in the waiting list prepared on 17.5.1986, filed representations to the respondents for being given appointment on class IV posts. By order dated 5.10.1995 the representation of the petitioners has been rejected. Writ petition no. 36622 of 1995 has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 5.10.1995 whereby their representation has been rejected. Thereafter the District Judge published an advertisement in the newspaper on 15.11.1995  inviting applications for appointment on Class IV posts in the Judgeship. The petitioners have challenged the said advertisement by means of writ petition no. 34194 of 1995. By means of writ petition no. 29735 of 1995 the petitioners have challenged the appointment of Respondents no. 3 to 8 of the said writ petition. A common prayer has been made by the petitioners in all the three writ petitions that they be absorbed on class IV posts in pursuance of the selection held on 4.5.1986 and the waiting list prepared at that time.

I have heard Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri S.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.

The life of a waiting list cannot be for all times to come. It is very strange that for selection on six vacant post, a waiting list of 43 candidates had been prepared. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of District Judge, Baghpat Vs. Anurag Kumar 2005 (2) E.S.C.(All.) 1509 has held that appointment made beyond the post advertised from amongst the candidates placed in waiting list would not be justified and would thus be beyond jurisdiction. A waiting list is to be prepared for appointing candidates placed in such list when the selected candidates fail to join. For example, if six candidates were to be appointed and out of the six selected candidates if any of them do not join the post, then alone a candidate from the waiting list can be accommodated. It is not so that the waiting list would be there to fill up the future vacancies which occur subsequently for all times to come. If this is to be permitted then for six posts, after preparing a list of six selected candidates, the remaining can be placed in the waiting list (which may be a hundred or even more) and then for the next hundred vacancies which occur subsequently, those from such waiting list would be appointed, thereby killing the opportunity of all such candidates who become eligible subsequently when the posts fall vacant later. This cannot be permitted in law.

It is not disputed that the six candidates had already joined the post. As such the petitioners cannot be entitled to appointment on the post for which selection was held in the year 1986. On the occurrence of fresh vacancies, fresh selection has to take place and the candidates, who were selected in pursuance of an earlier selection in which all the advertised posts had been filled, cannot be appointed as of right. As such I do not find any good ground for interference in this writ petition. However, I would also not like to comment or pass any orders with regard to any appointments already made from the waiting list of 1986, beyond the advertised posts, as the said issue is not before me.

These writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.

Let a photostat copy of this judgment be placed on the records of writ petitions no. 29735 of 1995 and 34194 of 1995.

dt.  31.7.2007



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.