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


Manoj Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 46362 of 2004 [2004] RD-AH 1587 (2 December 2004)


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).


Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

On 2.11.2004 Sri R.D.Khare, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 9 was granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit but till date no counter affidavit has been filed although more than four weeks have passed. In the said order it was made clear that the application for interim relief shall be considered on the next date. Today again Sri R.D.Khare, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 9 has prayed for further time to file counter affidavit.

In February,2003 the Electricity Service Commission issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up 190 posts of Office Assistant Grade III from amongst the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. After selection, the results had been declared on 22.8.2003. Some of the candidates were issued appointment letters immediately thereafter but in the case of some selected candidates, before appointment letters could be issued, there was a ban imposed and thus such candidates, despite having been selected, could not be given appointment. Those who were not given appointments filed several writ petitions which were ultimately allowed by this Court and directions were issued to give appointment to them also. The said orders were challenged in special appeals. Two such special appeals were dismissed with the observation that the appointments given to such candidates would be subject to the enquiry which was being conducted. However in one such special appeal, this Court referred the matter to a larger Bench and stayed the operation of the judgment of the writ Court and further directed that the persons who had already been appointed would also not be given work. Thus those class of selected candidates who had already been given appointments prior to the filing of the writ petitions approached the Supreme Court on the ground that their appointments had been cancelled without they being parties to the writ petitions or in the special appeals. The Apex Court by its order dated 4.10.2004, keeping in view the fact that in the mean time the respondent-Corporation had itself cancelled the entire selections, dismissed the Special Leave Petition. However, it was observed therein that the order of dismissal of the Special Leave Petition shall not prevent the petitioners from challenging the cancellation, if they were otherwise so entitled.

In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the petitioners herein, who all are such candidates who were initially selected and appointed by the respondent-Corporation, have now challenged the order dated 30th September, 2004 whereby after cancelling the entire selection, a direction has been issued to the respondents to hold fresh selections for filling up the said 190 posts of Office Assistant Grade III within a period of three months, which would be expiring on 30th December, 2004.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that fresh selection process has already begun and applications from amongst those who had earlier applied in pursuance of the advertisement issued in February, 2003 have been invited. It has been contended that the petitioners having been validly selected by the Electricity Service Commission and having already been given appointment and worked for more than a year, their appointments could not have been cancelled specially when no opportunity of hearing was given to them and once a right had accrued in their favour, the same could not be withdrawn without following the principles of natural justice. It has also been submitted that each of the reasons given in the impugned order are non-existent and thus the said order is liable to be set aside.

Having regard to the fact that time was granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit but although more than four weeks have passed, no counter affidavit has been filed and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, as an interim measure it is provided that till the next date of listing, the selection process in pursuance of the impugned order dated 30.9.04 may go on but neither the results of the same shall be declared nor appointments be made in pursuance thereof. It is further provided that the petitioners may appear in the fresh selection, which shall not prejudice their right involved in the present writ petition.

The respondents may file counter affidavit within three weeks. The petitioners shall have ten days thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List in the week commencing 10.1.2005.





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.