Dismissed

Rajendra Kumar Arya v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2021SPLAD/747/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This special appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the cancellation of the Appellant's appointment. The Court upheld the lower court's ruling, noting the delay in approaching the Court and finding no merit in discrimination allegations due to the Appellant lacking the required qualification.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; special appeal dismissed.

Rajendra Kumar Arya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 747 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Rajendra Kumar Arya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Gulrez Khan,Faisal Hasan Abidi,Shivendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

This special appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.12.2020 in Writ-A No.10724 of 2020 (Rajendra Kumar Arya vs. State of U.P. and 4 others). The relevant portion of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.12.2020 is reproduced below:

¶7

"It is not in dispute that the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent No. 5 on 28.5.2018 in compliance of the judgement of this Court dated 7.10.2017 passed in Writ A No. 41750 of 2015. The petitioner has neither assailed this order nor the revised select list. Since there is delay of about 2 and 1/2 years and all the candidates who have been selected in the revised select list have been given appointment and have joined their respective posts as third party rights have intervened, therefore, even if the petition is allowed, there is no vacancy on which the petitioner can be appointed. Therefore, the delay in approaching this Court is vital. In view of the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches in filing the writ petition.

¶8

So far as the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the direction of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal as persons like the petitioner has been selected. The pleading in this respect has been made in paragraph No. 29 of the writ petition which is being extracted hereinbelow:"29. That the respondent No. 3 i.e. Commission issued an Office Memorandum dated 7.7.2018 containing list of 111 selected candidates. It is reflected from the said list that the Commission has selected 11 candidates who possess qualification equivalent to CCC certificate. A copy of the O.M. dated 7.7.2018 issued by the respondent No. 3 is being filed hereinwith as Annexure No. 11 to this writ petition."

¶9

A perusal of the paragraph-29 of the writ petition shows that pleading in respect of discriminatory action of the respondents is vague inasmuch as name of persons who possess higher qualification like the petitioner who have been selected is not mentioned, therefore, this ground is also not tenable.

¶10

It is also pertinent to mention that the matter has travelled up to the Supreme Court and the cancellation of select list in which petitioner was appointed was upheld by the Supreme Court, therefore, this Court cannot grant the reliefs as claimed by the petitioner. For the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed."

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has invited attention of this Court to paragraphs34 and 35 of the writ petition and we find that explanation for delay of about two and half years is totally lacking. Therefore, the finding of the learned Singe Judge on the point of latches, requires no interference. So far as the allegation of discrimination is concerned, we find that the petitioner was holding diploma in electrical engineering but he was not holding the required qualification. Therefore, the question of discrimination does not arise at all. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in this special appeal. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶12

For all the reasons afore-stated, the special appeal is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 30.11.2021 NLY

Rajendra Kumar Arya v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Arya 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Vs Ramveer Yadav and 3 Others

Ashutosh Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Name Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

State of U.P. and 5 Others Vs Smt Umarani

Suresh Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Agarwal (Huf) Vs Union of India and 2 Others