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


Ram Sajewan v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. - 25738 of 1995 [2007] RD-AH 18822 (12 December 2007)

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. 26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25738 of 1995

Ram Sajiwan


State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner claims that he had been appointed as class IV employee in District Court at Kanpur in April, 1974 and was confirmed on the said in 1982. Petitioner has contended that proceedings were undertaken for making selection and appointment on class III posts; he also applied and appeared in the examination, and in the select list which was published, his name figured at serial No. 58; out of the said select list, Officiating District Judge gave temporary appointment to seven persons. Petitioner has contended that since the life span of the said select list prepared in 1985 was one year and it was going to expire on 31.10.1986, and as petitioner was not offered appointment, he met respondent No.2. On 06.11.1986, he was informed by Bhartendu Nigam that appointments would be offered when their cases would be considered. Petitioner submits that thereafter 19 persons were appointed from the said list on 05.12.1986 and 35 persons had been offered appointment on 20.07.1987 and 38 incumbents from the said list had been given ad hoc appointment, but petitioner has not been offered appointment. Petitioner has contended that recently he acquired knowledge that two persons, namely, Girish Chandra Srivastava and B.N. Singh have been offered appointment in view of the judgment dated 21.08.1991. Petitioner submits that he is also entitled for the similar benefit.

Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in all eventuality, petitioner is entitled to be offered appointment. Keeping in view the judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 21.08.1991, similarly situated incumbents have been offered appointment, as such similar benefits be extended to petitioner also.

From the side of respondents, it has been contended that select list is of the year 1985 and after 22 years, relief claimed for is not at all liable to be accorded and writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges is to the effect that it has been accepted by petitioner that life span of the select list being one year, it came to an end on 31.10.1986. Life span of the select list has already come to an end, and the petitioner came forward after the judgment dated 21.08.10991 had been delivered, that too after four years, in the year 1995. Once petitioner has slept over his right, no relief can be accorded to him.

Consequently, writ petition 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.