Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJ KUMAR YADAV & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Raj Kumar Yadav & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1657 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 220 (4 January 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

Court No.32

Special Appeal No.1657 of 2006

Raj Kumar Yadav and others .....Appellants

Versus

State of U.P. and others .....Respondents

******

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

This intra Court appeal under the Rules of the Court is preferred against the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court dated 27.10.2006 dismissing appellant's Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55515 of 2005.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

It appears that some supernumerary posts in Class-III and Class-IV were created for a short period by the State Government vide Notification dated 20.5.2003, copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. The said posts were advertised on 24/25.5.2003. The petitioners-appellants pursuant to the said advertisement applied. While the selection was in process, ban on appointment was imposed by the State Government, consequent whereto, selection process could not be completed. The aforesaid ban was lifted on 15.1.2004. Thereafter, the petitioners-appellants approached this Court in the aforesaid writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the authorities to proceed with the process of selection and also to declare the result.  Having considered the affidavits exchanged between the parties and after hearing the respondents' counsels, the Hon'ble Single Judge held that mere selection does not confer any indefeasible right to claim appointment on the basis of such selection, and thus dismissed the writ petition by a reasoned judgment where against this appeal has arisen.

Learned counsel for the appellants sought to argue before us that the posts are still in existence and, therefore, the stand of the State Government that those posts were surrendered and no more available is wrong and on this premise the writ petition could not have been dismissed. We do not find any substance in the submission for the reason that from a perusal of the Government Order dated 20.5.2003 issued by the State Government by which posts were created, it is apparent that the supernumerary posts were created for the financial year 2003-2004 and were to continue till the end of  February, 2004 or till availability of regular post due to retirement or for any other reason or if the posts are abolished at an early date, whichever is earlier. Thus, the posts which were created on supernumerary basis ipso facto ceased by the end of February, 2004, in the absence of any order of the Government to continue the same further. Hence the authorities have rightly taken a decision to discontinue the selection process. It is not the case of the appellants nor any material has been placed before us that these posts have been re-sanctioned by any order of the State Government at any point of time.  Moreover, the appellants were only a candidate, who had participated in the selection, were not even the candidate selected against the posts and, therefore, had no right to insist upon the respondents to complete the selection and make appointment.  A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to complete the selection and declare the result particularly when the posts, against which the advertisement was published, have no more in existence, are not have been sought for.

No other point has been urged before us.

Thus, in the absence of any legal right of the appellants to claim appointment to the posts, which are no more in existence, the Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any factual or legal error in the judgment under appeal.

The appeal, being without merit, is hereby dismissed.

Dated: 4.1.2007

SKM


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.