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


Yogesh Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 40048 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 17120 (3 October 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. 27                                                  

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  40048 of 2004

Yogesh Kumar            ..............................................      Petitioner


State of Uttar Pradesh

& others                  ................................................. Respondents


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to declare the result of type test held on 25.8.2003.  Petitioner's case in the writ petition is that vide advertisement dated 17.6.2003 one post was advertised for clerk reserved for Scheduled Caste.  Petitioner applied in pursuance of the advertisement and was also called for type test vide letter dated  31.7.2003.   The State Government vide its order dated 29.8.2003 stopped all recruitments.  On account of the said order of the State Government the result was not declared. Subsequently  the said ban order was lifted vide letter dated  15.1.2004. A report dated 4.9.2004 was sent by the Regional Food Controller, Saharanpur to State Government informing that  in Saharanpur region there are twenty sanctioned posts against which  twenty one clerks are already working. He informed that there are no vacancy in the region.  Earlier the report was called by the State Government on the representation of the petitioner with regard to said application. In the counter affidavit  it has been stated that before the result could be declared of the type test, ban was imposed by the State Government and when the ban was lifted  in the year 2004 twenty one clerks were working against twenty sanctioned posts.  Due to said reason the result has not declared nor any selection has been made.  Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that  there being one vacancy at the time of advertisement, the petitioner has right of selection and appointment on the said one post. He further submits that no details have been given as to how the said one post  was filled up.

I have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is true that the advertisement was made for one post of clerk. It has been stated in the counter affidavit  that at the time when the advertisement  was made for one post against twenty sanctioned posts only 19 persons were working and hence one post was advertised. Before the result of type test could be declared the State Government imposed ban on 29.8.2003.  Subsequently the ban was lifted but the report has been submitted by the Regional Food Controller   that against 20 sanctioned posts 21 persons are working in the Region.  Merely because the petitioner has made an application in pursuance of the advertisement for one post he has no indefeasible right for selection and appointment. In view of subsequent ban imposed by the State Government and thereafter there being no vacant  post of clerk the action of respondents in  not declaring the result  in pursuance of advertisement  of one post of clerk cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable.  It is well settled that even  inclusion of name in the panel  does not give indefeasible right to a candidate for appointment. Considering the respondent's case that all the posts are filled up subsequent to advertisement, the prayer of the petitioner for a writ of mandamus directing  the respondent to declare result of type test held in pursuance of the advertisement dated 17.6.2003 cannot be granted.  

The writ petition lacks merit and is 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.