The petitioner sought appointment on a Lekhpal post via mandamus. The court rejected the claim as the petitioner had scores below the cutoff in the 2016 merit list. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Appointment on the post of Lekhpal was denied due to insufficient marks below the cutoff.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1518 of 2019
Petitioner :- Raghvendra Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Lal,Yogendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav learned Standing Counsel.
The principal relief claimed in this petition reads thus:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Lekhpal through notification dated 3.7.2015 (annexure no.1) of this writ petition."
Undisputedly the merit list, as per the own showing of the petitioner, was published in 2016. The petitioner was not shown as selected since he had obtained marks lesser than the cut off fixed. The oral submission advanced for filling up vacant positions on the basis of that list is noticed only to be rejected. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.2.2019 faraz
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be appointed on the post of Lekhpal based on a notification dated 3.7.2015 after obtaining marks less than the cutoff.
Whether the petition lacks merit as the petitioner was not selected in the merit list published in 2016.
Whether the oral submission regarding appointing vacant positions should be accepted.
Raghvendra Yadav
State Of U.P
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
