Allowed

C/M Sri Sanatan Dharam Kanya Inter College Thru Manager v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2019SPLA/478/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-Court appeal challenged an order granting interim relief to appoint a candidate selected in an earlier selection against an unadvertised vacancy. The Court upheld a Division Bench precedent that unadvertised vacancies cannot be filled from previous selections, setting aside the earlier grant of relief and restraining appointment until proper advertising.

What did the court decide?

The judgment dated 2.5.2006 allowing shorthand services was set aside; respondents are restrained from appointing the candidate in the unadvertised vacancy.

C/M Sri Sanatan Dharam Kanya Inter College Thru… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 478 of 2006

¶4

Appellant :- C/M Sri Sanatan Dharam Kanya Inter College Thru Manager

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anoop Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Narayan Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Vibhu Rai holding brief of Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶8

This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1952') has arisen from judgment dated 02.05.2006 passed by learned Single Judge granting interim relief in favour of respondent-4 i.e. Smt. Preeti Rana in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.20292 of 2006 filed by appellant, permitting to make appointment of respondent-4 which shall be subject to result of writ petition.

¶9

It is contended that so long as vacancies have not been notified by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as “Board”) for making appointment in the said vacancy, a candidate selected in an earlier selection, cannot be appointed on the vacancy, which is existing but was never notified.

¶10

It is also contended that this issue has been already settled by learned Division Bench of this Court in Satish Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others, decided on 22.9.2006 and Division Bench has answered questions referred for it, as under :-

¶11

“For the reasons and the conclusions drawn hereinabove, our answer to Question No. 1 is :

¶12

“An unadvertised vacancy cannot be filled up from amongst the candidate who has been selected in any previous selections and to that extent we declare that

¶13

the pronouncement of the learned Single Judge in the case of Savita Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2004 (2) UPLBEC 2739, does not lay down the law correctly and is hereby overruled."

¶14

and to Question No.2 is :

¶15

"The U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board constituted under the U.P. Act No.5 of the 1982 cannot, with the aid of the Government Order dated 12th March, 2001, order any adjustment in respect of a vacancy, which has been intimated and notified but not advertised".

¶16

Following the aforesaid decision, a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 41691 of 2006 (Smt. Kamlesh Verma v. State of U.P. and Others) has also held as under :-

¶17

“7. Hence the law is now well settled that the vacancy which was not advertised in a particular selection, the candidate selected therein cannot be adjusted against such unadvertised vacancy.

¶18

8. Learned counsel for the Commission informed that Rules have been amended in the year 2007 wherein such adjustment is permitted and the validity thereof is under consideration before this court. Be that as it may, it is evident that the aforesaid rules having been notified in January 2007 would not cover the question involved in the present case because admittedly the rule did not exist at the relevant time.”

¶19

We agree with the aforesaid view of learned Single Judge. Since the matter is covered by the judgement of Full Bench (supra), therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this appeal pending. We, accordingly, allow this Special Appeal. The judgement and order dated 2.5.2006 is hereby set aside and respondents no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are restrained from filing in vacancy in question by appointing a candidate who has been selected in an earlier selection and has not been selected

¶20

against vacancy in question which was not advertised.

¶21

Copy of this order shall also be tagged in writ petition and necessary endorsement shall be made therein regarding disposal of writ petition as along with this appeal.

¶22

Order Date :- 5.2.2019 Manoj

C/M Sri Sanatan Dharam Kanya Inter College Thru Manager v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Sri Sanatan Dharam Kanya Inter College Thru Manager v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghanshyam Tiwari and Another Vs Join T Director of Education and 4 Others

Kali Charan Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Thru Secy. Irrigation Deptt and Others Vs Vijay Kumar Yadav

Prem Nath Jaiswal Vs Official Liquidator and Others

Mohd. Parvez Alam and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Bharat Raj Singh Vs District Basic Education Officer and Others