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


Daya Shanker Gupta v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 10212 of 2003 [2005] RD-AH 741 (15 March 2005)


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).



   Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10216   OF 2003

Sanjay Kumar Rao and others.....................................Petitioner


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


Hon. Tarun Agarwala, J.

  Heard counsel for the parties.

The petitioners have prayed for the quashing of the impugned order dated 24.7.2001, passed by the District Judge, Deoria, cancelling the waiting list of Class-IV employees. 21 vacancies were notified in the news papers on 3.2.2000 for filling the vacancies on the post of peons, process servers etc. It transpires that 21 vacancies were subsequently filled from the select list of 40 persons. It further transpires that three vacancies arose subsequently and the waiting list was utilized and the said posts were filled. Subsequently by the impugned order, the waiting list has been cancelled.

In Ram Babu and another vs. District Judge, Banda, 1996 A.W.C. 516, it has been held that the moment the notified vacancies are filled up, the waiting list prepared under Rule 12 of U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules,1955 comes to an end and no further appointment can be made from the said waiting lit. The decision of this Court in Ram Babu's case squarely covers the present facts and circumstances of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed a that the decision in the case of Shilesh Chandra Saxena  vs. State of U.P. and others, 1989 ALR 13, in which it has been held that if a particular period is not prescribed for a life of the waiting list, it should be extended upto  three years. This decision, in my view, is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. In the aforesaid case, the Rules of U.P. Palika (Centralized) Service Rules, 1966 was under consideration whereas in the present case a direction has been given in the judgment of Ram Babu case while interpreting Rule 12 of U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955.

In view of the aforesaid, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable.

Consequently, there is no error in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Dated: 15.3.2005



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.