Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MANOJ KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Manoj Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 3950 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 3710 (2 March 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3950 of 2007

Manoj Kumar

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri R.P. Dubey, Advocate, for respondents.

Brief facts, giving rise to instant writ petition, are that in the district of Jyotiba Phule Nagar, there is a recognized institution known as Gyan Bharti Inter College, Gajraula. The said institution is duly recognized under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. In the said institution one Assistant Teacher, namely, Jaswant Singh, resigned on 02.11.2001, thus, giving rise to a substantive vacancy on the post of Assistant Teacher (Maths). As per record produced today, the said vacancy was notified through the agency of the District Inspector of Schools to the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board on 19.06.2003. Pursuant to said notification, vacancy in question was advertised vide Advertisement No. 1 of 2004 and one Ram Prakash was selected by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, and was recommended by the Board for appointment to the institution concerned against the post in question. Pursuant to said recommendation he joined and has been functioning. It appears that the management of the institution without mentioning and disclosing the fact that the said vacancy was already notified, once again proceeded to notify the same on 29.09.2004, and it was not mentioned in the said notification that the said vacancy had already been notified. The U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, once again advertised the said vacancy vide Advertisement No.1 of 2005. Pursuant to this advertisement, petitioner applied and has been selected. Thereafter, the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board recommended the name of petitioner for appointment as Assistant Teacher (Maths) to the aforementioned institution against the post, on which Ram Prakash has been functioning. After the petitioner has been recommended, then this fact came to light that there is no vacancy on the post against which recommendation has been made by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, as such petitioner cannot be offered appointment.

Thus, admitted position which emerges is to the effect that the post of Assistant Teacher which had fallen vacant on account of tendering resignation by Jaswant Singh stood filled up by Ram Parakash, as such said vacancy could not be part of the advertisement No. 1 of 2005. Consequently, recommendation, which has been made in favour of petitioner qua the institution in question is unsustainable. The said recommendation cannot be implemented and given effect to.

Now the next question is as to in what way and manner grievance of petitioner can be remedied. Sub-rule (10) of Rule 12 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Rules, 1998 takes care of the situation. A bare perusal of the said sub-rule (10) goes to show that the Board shall after preparing the panel in accordance with sub-rule (8) allocate the institutions to the selected candidates in respect of the posts of teachers in lecturers and trained graduates grade in such manner that the candidates whose name appears at the top of the panel shall be allocated the institution of his first preference given in accordance with sub-rule (9). Where a selected candidate cannot be allocated any of the institutions of his preference on the ground that the candidates placed higher in the panel have already been allocated such institutions there remains no vacancy in them, the Board may allocate any institution to him as it may deem fit.  In these circumstances and in this background, Secretary, U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad is directed to see that claim of petitioner is considered in consonance with the provisions of U.P. Act N. 5 of 1982 and sub-rule (1) of Rules 12 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Rules, 1998, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment qua unfilled notified and notified vacancies.

In terms of above observations and direction, present writ petition is disposed of.

02.03.2007

SRY


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.