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


Dinesh Kumar And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 14763 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 4846 (20 March 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. 1

                   Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14763 of 2007

Dinesh Kumar and another       versus    State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amit Srivastava, counsel for the petitioners, the Standing counsel for respondent no.1, Sri V.P.Mathur, counsel for respondent no.2 and perused the record.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that though the examination and interview for the post of Junior Engineer and Computer Programmer have been held in the months of April and June, 2005 respectively but the result has not been declared. It is further submitted that an advertisement has been issued by the respondents inviting applications for appointment of 10 other vacancies of the post of Junior Engineer. It is also urged that written examination has been held for the subsequently advertised vacancies but their results have also not been declared.

On the basis of above, it is vehemently urged by the counsel for the petitioners that the action of the department in not declaring the result of examination is wholly malafide and without any reasonable basis.  The argument of the counsel for the petitioners is that the department collects money from the candidates for holding examinations and does not publish the results. In this way department keeps huge amount of unutilized money with it and keeps on repeating the same over and over again usurping the money collected from the candidates who have a right legitimate expectation.

In the instant case, the petitioners have applied in view of the vacancies advertised by the department and are now made them to run from pillar to post by not declaring the result.

Prima facie, I would have rejected the petition at the stage of admission as no representation has been made by the petitioners for declaring the result before competent authority and directly approaching this Court and on the ground of delay which is not explained as to why the petitioners have approached so late by filing this writ petition but for the reason that accountability of such department who advertises the vacancies collects money but do not declare the result is required to be fixed and  law for public good has to be laid down to do away such mal- practices. This can only be done after hearing the counsel for both the parties, hence I am of the opinion that the parties may filed their counter and rejoinder affidavits and place on record material in support of their respective case.

Let counter affidavit be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within 3 weeks thereafter.

List thereafter.

Dated 20.3.2007



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.