Disposed

Rahul Mishra and 13 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 11 Ors.

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2018SPLA/747/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Appeal filed by candidates challenging their non-selection for Gram Panchayat Adhikari post was disposed of. The High Court directed the appellant to file an amendment application in a pending Writ Petition (No. 960 of 2017) to raise similar issues, stating the dismissed impugned order would not be an impediment.

What did the court decide?

Appellant permitted to move application for amendment in pending Writ Petition No. 960 of 2017 to agitate all issues raised in the appeal; conditio impugned order shall not be an impediment.

Rahul Mishra and 13 Ors. Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 747 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Rahul Mishra And 13 Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 11 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kailash Singh Kushwaha

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

This appeal is preferred to question correctness of order dated 31.07.2018 passed by learned single Bench in Writ - A No. 16069 of 2018.

¶6

The order aforesaid reads as follows:

¶7

"Petitioners had applied for appointment to the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari in the year 2015. It appears that the petitioners, although qualified the written test but they were not successful in the final select list. It is pointed out that the select list was published in December, 2016. Petitioners submit that there were various anomalies in the selection made and that a writ petition questioning the select list is pending before this Court.

¶8

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition.

¶9

Admittedly, petitioners had applied for appointment pursuant to the advertisement and had participated in it. They are aggrieved by their non selection. No specific ground has been disclosed, on the basis of which select list has been challenged. None of the selected candidates is otherwise party before this Court. After expiry of substantial period, this Court would not be inclined to accept challenge to the select list merely because certain other persons have made a challenge to the result earlier. Similar writ petition has otherwise been dismissed on 25.3.2018 being Writ Petition No. 12722 of 2018.

¶10

For all such reasons, writ petition fails and is dismissed."

¶11

It is brought to our notice by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-recruiting agency that a petition for writ, preferred by the petitioner giving challenge to the same process of selection is pending consideration before this Court. According to learned counsel whatever averments raised in this appeal would have been raised in earlier petition for writ preferred by the petitioner bearing

¶12

Writ- A No. 960 of 2017.

¶13

On going through the record available, we are satisfied that both the matters pertains to the same selection process, the appellant-petitioner as such could have raised all the issue raised in the instant matter by seeking amendment in the petition for writ earlier preferred.

¶14

Learned counsel for the commission on asking by the Court in quite unambiguous terms stated that if the appellantpetitioner moves any application seeking amendment in the petition for writ, which is pending consideration before this Court bearing Writ- A No. 960 of 2017 and if the amendment is allowed, then the respondents Commission shall contest the same on merits without taking any objection about disposal of the writ petition bearing Writ- A No. 16069 of 2018. The appellant-petitioner shall be at liberty to agitate all the contentions raised in this appeal in the aforesaid Writ - A No. 960 of 2017.

¶15

In view of the statement given by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal by keeping the appellant-petitioner at liberty to move application for amendment in the writ petition bearing Writ- A No. 960 of 2017 and on acceptance of that to agitate all the issue raised in this appeal. The order passed by learned single Judge which is under consideration in this appeal shall not be an impediment for consideration of all the issue raised in the amended petition for writ.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.8.2018 Prajapati

¶17

[Chandra Dhari Singh, J] [Govind Mathur, J]

Rahul Mishra and 13 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Mishra and 13 Ors. v. State of U.P. and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swami Viveka Nand Samajik Utthan Samiti and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ashok Kumar Mishra Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Charan Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Dinesh Rai Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Anirudha Singh Vs Dharmeshwar Upadhyay

Vimla Devi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Ors.