Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ASHISH KUMAR SINGH versus MANAGER (PERSONNEL) GORAKHPUR INDUSTRIAL DEV. AUTHORITY

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ashish Kumar Singh v. Manager (Personnel) Gorakhpur Industrial Dev. Authority - WRIT - A No. 6407 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1909 (7 February 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Amitava Lala,J.

Hon'ble V.C.Misra,J.

An advertisement was issued on 18th November, 2006 for the purpose of filling up two promotional posts i.e., Deputy Manager (Project) and Deputy Manager (Planning).  The petitioner is a candidate in respect of the post of Deputy Manager (Planning).

The contention of the writ petitioner is that although the result in respect of Deputy Manager (Project) has been declared but Deputy Manager (Planning) has not yet been declared.  He further contended that although he is fully aware of the limitation of the writ court but by virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1993 SCC (L&S) 637 (Asha Kaul (Mrs.) & Another Vs State of Jammu Kashmir & Others) = (1993) 2 SCC 573), it is equally not open to the Government to approve a part of the list and disapprove the balance.

Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, we are of the view that there is no question of disapproval.  There might be a delay in declaring the result in respect of Deputy Manager (Planning).  This cannot vitiate or infringe any right of the petitioner, nor it is interfered with. There is no allegation of mala fide. His future seniority post of the Deputy Manager (Project) and Deputy Manager (Planning) are separate cadre post.  The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court is related to the part publication of the list in relation to the candidates of the similar posts.  The petitioner has contended that he has made representation.  It is also to be recorded hereunder that the publication has been made in respect of the post of Deputy Manager (Project) before a month from this date.  Therefore, either in fact or in law we cannot find any cogent reason to interfere with the matter.  The scope is limited.

          Therefore, we dismiss the writ petition.  But we hope and trust that the result will be published and the steps will be taken particularly in giving reply to the application of the petitioner, which has been made in the form of representation dated 30th December, 2006.

However, no order is passed as to costs.

Dt.07.2.07

PKB

WP6407-07


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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