Dismissed

Priyanka Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2018WRIA/25149/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a teacher eligibility test qualified candidate seeking consideration for 2011 vacancies despite 2018 recruitment. The single-judge High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the 2018 vacancies were filled in accordance with the relevant law and the petitioner could not avail relief.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner was denied relief and the writ petition was dismissed.

Priyanka Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25149 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Priyanka Kushwaha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bairister Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

According to the petitioner, she is having qualification of the Teacher Eligibility Test of the year 2011 and had applied against the vacancies advertised. However, the districts where she appeared in counselling she could not succeed as had failed to achieve cutoff marks.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner now has drawn the attention of the Court of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of U.P. and Others v. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others which arose out of division bench judgment of this Court relating to the vacancies of the year 2011 advertisement and then he submits that the matter of the petitioner is covered and her candidature can be considered in the light the observations made therein.

¶8

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent has argued that that observations made in judgment in its concluding part clearly suggests that remaining vacancies of the year of the advertisement in question are required to be filled up in accordance with law and in 2018 vacancies have already been advertised to the tune of 68000 and odd in number and the selection process is already over, and so there is no occasion for consideration of 2011 candidate in the matter any more.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the judgment of Apex Court, I find that the Apex Court has directed that remaining vacancy should be filled up in accordance with law. Para 19 of the judgment is quoted hereunder:

¶10

"We have been informed that 66,655 teachers have

¶11

already been appointed in pursuance of the interim orders of this Court. Having regard to the entirety of circumstances, we are not inclined to disturb the same. We make it clear that the state is at liberty to fill up the remaining vacancies in accordance with law after issuing a fresh advertisement. "

¶12

In the backdrop of the facts that the vacancies that were carried out to the year 2018 has now been subject matter of the selection as advertisement issued in 2018, I am of the considered opinion that no benefit can now be extended to the petitioner for her application that was made against 2011 advertisement. Petitioner had enough opportunity to apply in 2018 advertisement but it appears that she did not apply as pleadings to that effect are lacking in the writ petition.

¶13

In the opinion of the Court, therefore, no relief can be extended to the petitioner in the present writ petition. Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Sanjeev

Priyanka Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Pushpa Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mohammad Zaved Mekrani and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Baqir Raza Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Lajjawati Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sandeep Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Meenakshi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others