Dismissed

Sudhakar Chauhan and 20 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2021WRIA/4849/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a recruitment advertisement for Technician Gr-II posts. The court held that the matter had attained finality with the Supreme Court in a related case regarding qualification requirements and was not open for re-examination.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as the issue was already decided by the Supreme Court and not open for re-examination.

Sudhakar Chauhan and 20 Others Vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 89

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4849 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Sudhakar Chauhan And 20 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Srivastava Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶4

Heard Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners on video link. Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel representig respondents 2, 3 and 4 is available on video link. Learned Standing Counsel representing representing respondents 1 to 4 is also available.

¶5

Present writ petition has been filed for following relief:

¶6

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other proper writ, order or direction quashing/setting-aside the aforementioned 'Advertisement dated 17.6.2020 annexed as Annexure No-1 to the instant writ petition'

¶7

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other proper writ order or direction directing thereby the respondent no-2 Corporation to act in accordance with law and to take back the petitioners in service of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited upon the post of Technician Grad-II against the existing vacancies"

¶8

At the very outset, Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents 2, 3 and 4 submits that controversy involved in present writ petition has already been decided in Writ A No. 5552 of 2020 (Neeraj Panwar Vs. State of U.P. and Others) vide order dated 8.2.2021. For ready reference order dated 8.2.2021 is reproduced herein below:

¶9

"This petition is directed against the advertisement published on 17.06.2020, contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, whereby certain vacancies have been advertised for the appointment on the post of 'Technician Grate-II' i.e. Advertisement No. 3 of 2020. The basis of challenge to the advertisement is that in earlier process of recruitment initiated by the respondents, the petitioners were selected and they were offered appointment but their services have been illegally terminated.

¶10

Perusal of the record goes to show that large number of vacancies were filled on the post of Technician in the year 2014. The select list ultimately came to be challenged before this Court in a series of writ petitions on the ground that many of those, who had been selected, did not possess the requisite qualification of 'CCC' on the last date of filing of application. The judgment of learned Singh Judge dated 07.10.2017, however, was interfered with in a bunch of special appeals on 09.05.2019 with leading special appeal being Special Appeal No. 585 of 2018.

¶11

The aggrieved persons filed Civil Appeal No. 9026 of 2019 along with connected appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by an exhaustive judgment their lordships allowed the appeal and judgment of the learned Single Judge has been

¶12

restored. As a consequence, all those who were not possessed of 'CCC' qualification on the last date of submission of the application were terminated. The petitioners were also terminated on the same reason. Thereafter a new advertisement has been issued, which is under challenge in this petition.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that three persons, details of whom are given in the supplementary affidavit filed today, have been retained in the employment although their 'CCC' certificate is also of a date after the last date had expired for filling up the application. Sri Abhishek Srivastava for the respondents states that only those persons have been retained in the employment who either possessed 'CCC' qualification on the last date of filling up of application or those who had obtained equivalent certificate in terms of the Government Order dated 03.05.2016. It is further stated that the claim of three persons, who have been highlighted in the supplementary affidavit, will be examined and in case it is found that their appointments are not in terms of the decision already taken, appropriate order will be passed in their cases also. It is also stated that the decision taken by the corporation to terminate the services of the persons found ineligible in terms of the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court has found approval in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as contained in para 67, and that the decision of termination is otherwise not under challenge.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the issue, which is sought to be raised again before this Court, has already been determined right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and only those, who posses 'CCC' certificate on the last date of filing of application form or possessed certificate, which have been granted equivalence vide Government Order dated 03.05.2016, alone can be retained in employment. Petitioners do not fall in that category. The order of termination is otherwise not under challenge. The issue, having attained finality up to Hon'ble Supreme Court, is not open to re-examination.

¶15

The contention that the petitioners have reserved their right to challenge the termination order later is noticed only to be rejected, inasmuch as it is not open for the petitioners to seek relief as per their convenience or to restrict the challenge selectively. They have approached this Court by filing the writ petition and after the matter has been heard, the petitioners cannot be permitted to reagitate the issue or to keep the matter alive especially after the matter has been resolved up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶16

So far as the contention that ineligible persons have been retained in employment is concerned, the respondents shall specifically examine those cases and shall ensure that their action remains strictly in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶17

Subject to the above observations, this petition is consigned to records"

¶18

Submission raised by learned counsel for respondents-2, 3 and 4 is not disputed by learned counsel for petitioner.

¶19

For the facts and reasons recorded in above mentioned order, present writ petition is also liable to be dismissed.

¶20

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶21

Order Date :- 1.7.2021/Arshad

Sudhakar Chauhan and 20 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakar Chauhan and 20 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Matsya Jivi Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Sayama Parveen and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandra Dev Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Reena Vs the Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Ravi Kumar Vs Union of India and 3 Others