High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rana Raghvendra Pratap Singh v. Zila Panchayat Thru Chairman And Others - WRIT - A No. 11380 of 2005  RD-AH 4208 (7 October 2005)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.C.Srivastava for the respondents.
The petitioner has come up in this writ petition challenging the advertisements published on 27.10.2004 and 6.2.2005 in Lucknow Edition of ''Swatantra Bharat' and in ''Hindustan' newspapers calling applicants for interview in respect of filling up the vacancies of the posts of Steno/Clerk and Tax Inspector etc. in Zila Panchayat, Jaunpur.
The only ground for challenging the aforesaid advertisements is that the petitioner could not know about the publication of the advertisement on 27.10.2004 in the ''Swatantra Bharat', Lucknow Edition on 27.10.2004 as the aforesaid newspaper has no circulation in the district of Jaunpur, as such the petitioner and other persons who were eligible could not apply.
The learned counsel for the respondents states that applications were invited by publication in the aforesaid two newspapers which have wide circulation in the area and that the petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge the selection having not applied for the jobs. He further submits that the interview has already taken place and the candidates in pursuance thereof have already joined their posts. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit have been placed wherein it is averred that ''Swatantra Bharat' has wide circulation in District Jaunpur and that the selection is over. The posts having been filled up, the prayer of the petitioner for a direction to respondents to make a fresh advertisement for filling up the posts and to appoint candidates in pursuance thereof is misconceived and cannot be granted. ''Swatantra Bharat' Lucknow Edition has wide circulation in the district of Jaunpur and nearby districts. Even otherwise the petitioner has not denied the advertisement published in ''Hindustan' dated 6.2.2005.
For these reasons it cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge about the vacancies having been advertised which in fact were advertised and were filled up in accordance with law. Even otherwise if practice of challenging advertisement on the grounds taken by the petitioner is allowed, then it will be a bad precedent as any person shall come up and challenge the selection.
For the reasons stated above, the petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.