Disposed

Amit Kumar Yadav v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2022WRIA/16995/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning a vacancy for Assistant Clerk, the High Court held that the respondent authority cannot act on vacancy details without first complying with a prior order directing consideration of the petitioner's claim. The petition was disposed of directing the authority to consider the pending claim within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 not to act on vacancy details except after dealing with petitioner's claim in compliance of the direction dated 01.02.2019 within one month.

Amit Kumar Yadav Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16995 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R. K. Singh Kaosik Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires, the order dated 08.09.2022 has been passed by the DIOS, Jaunpur, directing the Manager/Principal of all institutions at Jaunpur to submit details of vacancy on the post of Assistant Clerk.

¶6

In view of the instructions received by learned Standing Counsel, it further transpires, communication had been issued without first considering the petitioner's claim in accordance with the direction issued by the writ Court dated 01.02.2019 in Writ - A No. 1695 of 2019 (Amit Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors.). That writ petition was disposed of with the following direction:

¶7

"In the facts and circumstances, noticed above, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.2 to accord consideration to petitioner's claim for appointment, keeping in view the observations made by this Court in Abhishek Tripathi (supra), after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.3, by way of a reasoned order, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order."

¶8

Since the claim of the petitioner appears to be still pending, direction contained in the impugned order with respect to the post of Assistant Clerk, issued by the DIOS, Jaunpur, cannot be given effect to with respect to one post of Assistant Clerk at Ram Adhar Yadav Inter College, Rasulpur, Jaunpur, during pendency of the petitioner's claim.

¶9

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction, though respondent no.3 may have communicated the position of vacancy on the post of Assistant Clerk to the DIOS, Jaunpur, the said authority/respondent no.2 shall not act on the same except after dealing with the petitioner's claim in compliance of the direction dated 01.02.2019 in Writ - A No. 1695 of 2019. That compliance may be made within a period of one month from today, in accordance with law.

¶10

Order Date :- 11.11.2022 Abhilash

¶11

Digitally signed by ABHILASH SINGH Date: 2022.11.11 18:05:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Kumar Yadav v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Yadav v. State of U P and 2 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

Dr. Rajni Kumari Lecturer (History)/ in-Charge Principal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Shri Krishna Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Uma Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Avesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tej Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others