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


Gayasuddin v. The State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1036 of 2001 [2006] RD-AH 15674 (8 September 2006)


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.34

Special Appeal No. 1036 of 2001



The State of U.P. & Ors.


Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2001 of a learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 16798 of 1997 dismissing the Writ Petition on the ground that it was not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further observed that in case any selection for appointment is made for which the petitioner is eligible, he shall be considered for the same.

The petitioner submitted an application for appointment to the post of a Constable pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1996. He was selected by the Selection Board but the appointment letter was not issued to him and subsequently he learnt that he had not been appointed as the communication dated 15th February, 1997 had been sent that he was not suitable to be appointed as Crime Case No. 14 of 1993 under Section 198-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was pending in the Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that ultimately the petitioner was acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case by means of the order dated 26th March, 2001 and, therefore, he should have been appointed as a Constable. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that as the petitioner has not sought the quashing of the order dated 15th February, 1997 passed by the Senior Prosecution Officer by which it was held that the petitioner was not suitable for being given appointment and has merely sought a direction to give appointment, no relief can be given to the petitioner. He has further submitted that the matter relates to the appointments made in the year 1996 and, therefore, after a lapse of almost ten years, it would not be possible to grant any appointment to the petitioner as not only the petitioner may have become overage but all the vacancies must have also been filled up.

We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant has not placed before us the relevant rules relating to recruitment and, therefore, we are not in a position to determine whether the petitioner can be offered any appointment at this stage. This apart, the petitioner has not even stated whether any vacancy exists against which he can be given appointment and in absence of any vacancy it is not possible to give any relief to the petitioner particularly when he has not impleaded any candidate who was given appointment. The petitioner has also not sought the quashing of the order dated 15th February, 1997. Thus, also no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

Such being the position, the Special Appeal is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.  




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.