Dismissed

Shrikant Mani Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2022WRIA/15314/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal of appointment as a Librarian. Holding that no legal right accrued when eligibility conditions were amended before the advertisement, the Court distinguished a Supreme Court precedent and refused to remand the matter, deeming the exercise futile.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner did not receive the appointment; impugned order refusing approval was affirmed.

Shrikant Mani Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15314 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Shrikant Mani Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Singh,Ramesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rohit Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Shashi Prakash Rai learned counsel for the University.

¶6

Present writ petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 20.9.2019 passed by the Director, Higher Education. By that order the said authority has refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Librarian at Ramji Sahai Post Graduate College, Rudrapur, Deoria, a post graduate college affiliated to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, it transpires that the advertisement pursuant to which the petitioner claims appointment was first issued on 20.12.2009 whereas the eligibility conditions stood amended upon issuance of Government Order dated 13.5.2009.

¶8

Insofar as it is undisputed that the eligibility conditions stood altered before issuance of the advertisement inviting applications for the post of Librarian and insofar as it cannot be disputed, upon amendment of the eligibility conditions, the advertisement issued prescribing eligibility conditions in terms of the unamended law stood in conflict with the law that existed on the date of issuance of the advertisement, no rights accrued to the petitioner.

¶9

The principle being invoked by the learned counsel for the

¶10

petitioner-recruitment process undertaken under the unamended law would remain protected unless the recruitment process was specifically dropped/withdrawn, has no application to the present facts inasmuch as there is no material or evidence to establish that the recruitment process had been initiated before issuance of the Government Order dated 13.5.2009. Merely because the vacancies may have been approved and merely because recruitment have been advised to be undertaken, at the relevant level of decision making, would not amount to initiation of the recruitment process. That occurrence may only remain the foundation on which a recruitment process may have been initiated but it may never amounted to initiation of the recruitment process itself.

¶11

To that extent, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. Sri Sewadas Vidyamandir High School and Others, (2011) 9 SCC 613 is distinguishable. In that case, the Supreme Court found the recruitment process to have been initiated upon publication of advertisement in two daily newspapers before amendment was made to the relevant rules on 25.10.2004.

¶12

In view of the position in law noted above, no relief may be granted to the petitioner, as claimed in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

The technical deficiency in the reasoning offered by the Director, in the impugned order may not persuade the Court to set aside the said order and remit it for fresh decision as no useful purpose may ever be served in such proceedings. Once no legal right is seen to exist, such remand would remain a completely futile exercise.

¶14

Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 19.11.2022/Faraz

¶16

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.11.19 17:54:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shrikant Mani Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikant Mani Tripathi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrikrishan Shukla Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Raghubansh Rai Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shriram Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Nisha Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Narendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Dr. Uday Raj Singh and 16 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others