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


Pawan Kumar Rai v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 34263 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14773 (31 August 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).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34263 of 2007

Pawan Kumar Rai ........................................../..................... Petitioner


State of Uttar Pradesh & others ............................... Respondents


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13,3,2007 passed by the District Inspector of Schools and the order of the Joint Director of Education dated 8.3.2007 by which the proposal of the Committee of Management recommending the appointment of Class IV post has been disapproved. From perusal of the order it is clear that the advertisement for the appointment was issued on 14.1.2007 and the advertisement itself provided that the applicant should apply by 24.1.2007. The authorities have taken the view that since only 10 days were given to the candidates to apply which period is less than the prescribed hence the selection cannot be approved. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no period prescribed for the advertisement hence the impugned order is bad.

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

The selection in question was for Class IV post and admittedly advertisement was published on 14.1.2007 and the applications were required to be submitted by 24.1.2007. There was only ten days time between the two days. The authorities have come to conclusion that ten days' time is insufficient for advertisement. No exception can be taken to that view. The purpose of advertisement is to give opportunity to all the candidates to participate in the selection on a post. Giving only ten days time for submitting applications; cannorbe said to be sufficient time. Moreso, when in the advertisement it is not even mentioned whether the application is to be submitted through pot or in person. In the event the applications were required to send by Post, the period of ten days was definitely insufficient time for receiving the applications by Post. The advertisement also did not mention that the applications be given personally to any particular official. The respondents have given well reasons for not approving the selection which can neither be said to be arbitrary nor illegal. No case for interference is made out.

The writ petition is dismissed.




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.