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 Singh v. Registrar, Bararas Hindu University, Varanasi And Others - WRIT - A No. 20607 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 7609 (25 April 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. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.20607 of 2007

Dinesh Kumar Singh


State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Earlier petitioner had approached  this Court for issuing writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Field Assistant in the Department of the respondent no.3 forthwith

Advertisement was issued on 31.5.1995 by the Deen, Faculty of Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi for making selection and appointment on the post of Field Assistant. In the said selection proceeding, Selection Committee on 30.7.1995 recommended the name of  Gokulesh Kumar and it was further mentioned that in case said candidate does not join or in case  either post falls  vacant within one year, then   Om Prasad Das  (SC) and Dinesh Kumar Singh can be appointed. Gokulesh Kumar was appointed on 11/12.4.1996 and he joined as Field Assistant on 1.5.1996 and later on resigned on 31.3.1997. Dinesh Kumar Singh had filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.15635 of 1996, being aggrieved with the appointment of Gokulesh Kumar wherein on 2.5.2006, interim order was passed, that in case Gokulesh Kumar has not joined , he shall not be allowed to join.  In the said writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. In the said writ petition, an application was moved requesting therein that he does not intend to press the present writ petition. Thereafter on 3.5.2006 following order has been passed, which is being extracted below:-

"After hearing counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted that he does not want to press the writ petition and wants to withdraw at this stage.

I have heard Sri Pankaj Naqvi, who is appearing on behalf of Banaras Hindu University. He has submitted that he has no objection if the petitioner withdraws the writ petition.

In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

No order as to costs."

Thereafter, in the said writ petition, another application was moved for modification and therein categorical mention was made in paragraph 10 that  on account of lapse of time, the writ petition has been heard by this court on 3.5.2005 finally and the relief involved has not been granted on account of lapse of several years. Petitioner had also categorically mentioned in the said application that after he has got his writ petition dismissed, authorities concerned  have refused to entertain the plight of petitioner, as he got his writ petition dismissed as not pressed. Application for modification has also been got dismissed as not pressed. Petitioner has represented the matter and thereafter Executive Council has considered the same on 14.12.2006 and therein claim of appointment on the post of Field Assistant of petitioner has been rejected having no merit. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case, petitioner's candidature  has been treated   and meted with  arbitrary treatment and as such  writ petition deserves to be allowed, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that valid reasons have been assigned by the University,  for not accepting the claim of petitioner, as such no interference is warranted.

After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position, which is emerging is that  for getting appointment as Field Assistant, petitioner had  earlier filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.15635 of 1996. Said writ petition was got dismissed as not pressed, however, at the point of dismissal of writ petition,  no liberty whatsoever had been accorded to petitioner to file fresh writ petition. Thereafter, in the said writ petition, modification application was moved, wherein categorical statement of fact has been mentioned by  petitioner that this court was not inclined to grant relief, as sufficient period have elapsed and even said application was subsequently, got  dismissed as not pressed. Executive Council in the present case has taken conscious decision, taking into account the background of the case.

In view of the fact and background of the case,  once petitioner has raised  his grievance before this court, and got said writ petition dismissed as not pressed, then for the same set of relief, second writ petition is not maintainable.

Consequently, writ petition lacks substance and same is dismissed.

Dt. 25.4.2007



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.