Disposed

Devendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC28 Apr 2022WRIA/12051/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging appointment of another candidate and seeking his own appointment. Court directed petitioner to approach District Magistrate with fresh representation for reasoned decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Dy.Magistrate via fresh representation within two weeks; Dy.Magistrate to decide by reasoned order within six weeks.

Devendra Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12051 of 2017 Petitioner :- Devendra Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Khursheed Anwar Alvi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶2

Heard Shri Syed Khursheed Anwar Alvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4.

¶3

The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶4

"i. to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.2.2017 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition).

¶5

ii. to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for record of recruitment/ selection from the office of respondent no.4 held in pursuance of advertisement dated 16.7.2016 (Annexure No.3) and to quash the selection of respondent no.5 only.

¶6

iii. to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to select/appoint the petitioner to the post of Principal in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.7.2016 (Annexure No.3) with all consequential benefits including the consideration for extension of his tenure by renewing contract as per provisions contained in para 6 (2) of Govt. order dated 21.6.2016 as and when it becomes due."

¶7

It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner appeared for selection on the vacant post of Principal on contractual basis in Rajkiya Ashram School, Bogaon, District Mainpuri, and when the result was declared his name finds place at Serial No.2 in the list and the respondent no.5 was appointed on the post of Principal, subsequently, the respondent no.5 did not join the said post resulting therein the post of Principal in the Institution in question is lying vacant.

¶8

It is further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is qualified as per Government Order dated 21.06.2016 and his date of appointment is 14.10.1955 and also having experience as Principal of Navoday Vidyalay and being at Serial No.2, he may be considered for appointment.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions submits that there is no provision for preparation of waiting list and the same has not been prepared.

¶10

Since the respondent no.5 has not joined the duties and as per the instructions of learned Standing Counsel the post of Principal on contractual basis in the said Institution is lying vacant, a direction is issued to the petitioner to approach the respondent no.3, District Magistrate, District Jalaun by means of a fresh representation within a period of two weeks from today and, in case, such representation is made by the petitioner, the respondent no.3, District Magistrate, District Jalaun is directed to decide the same in accordance with the Government Order dated 21.06.2016 by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks thereafter.

¶11

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to cost.

¶12

Order Date :- 28.4.2022 S.P.

¶13

Digitally signed by SANJAY PURI Date: 2022.04.29 16:53:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Singh Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dharam Raj Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M Dr Ambedkar Shiksha Niketan Junior High School Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surendra Dev Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Gopeshwar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shrikant Ram and Others Vs Director of Education Basic Allahabad and Others