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


Usha Sharma v. Chief Secretary, Govt. Of U.P. Lucknow & Others - WRIT - A No. - 48426 of 2002 [2007] RD-AH 17987 (16 November 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. 40

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48426 of 2002

Usha Sharma Vs. Chief Secretary, U.P. Lucknow

and others.

Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

This petition is directed against an order dated 29.8.2002 by which the claim of the petitioner for being appointed as 'Anudeshak Embroidery' has been rejected.

In pursuance of an advertisement dated 26.3.1996, the petitioner applied for the post of 'Anudeshak Embroidery'. After facing the selection committee, a select list was issued by the U.P. Subordinate Services Board and the name of the petitioner was shown at serial no. 10 in that list. However, she was not granted any appointment and no action was taken in spite of several representations and therefore, she preferred a writ petition no. 8889 of 2001 which was finally disposed off vide order dated 5.3.2001 directing the respondents to decide her claim. By the impugned order, the claim has been rejected basically on the ground that no post was available and no junior to the petitioner has been appointed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that she had applied as reserved candidate under the O.B.C. Category and, therefore, her placement in the select list of the general candidate was illegal.

There is no specific pleading to that effect but only a passing reference has been made in one of the paragraphs. Until and unless the pleadings are specific, the petitioner cannot expect specific reply. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

It is then urged that subsequently the selection has also been notified and therefore the petitioner can be considered against those post. This contention could also not be accepted. The petitioner could have applied in the next selection but once the appointments in accordance with the earlier advertisement have been completed, she looses all rights to be considered. Further, it is evident from the record that no person junior to her in the select list has been appointed.

No other point has been urged.

For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.

Dt: 16.11.2007



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.