Writ petition seeking mandamus for appointment as Tube Well Operator. Court dismissed the petition, holding it covered by earlier judgments and Supreme Court decision in State of U.P. v. Karunesh Kumar, and noting the controversy is settled.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21986 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ajeet Kumar Srivastava And 18 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prabhakar Awasthi
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Shri Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Saurabh Tripathi holding brief of Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Shri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents No.1 and 2.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioners pray for the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the respondent no.3 to publish the additional list against the 3210 post in pursuance of the Advertisement No.15(3)/2016 to the post of Tube Well Operator issued by the Secretary, U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow.
(ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent no.3 to appoint the petitioners on the post of Tube Well Operator bearing Advertisement No.15(3)/2016 if they come under the merit otherwise petitioners will shall supper irreparable loss and injury by this Hon'ble Court".
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 as well as learned standing counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition inasmuch as it has been stated that the entire grievance of the petitioners is that the post which could not be filled ought not to be carried forwarded and the waiting list be prepared.
It has been pointed out that similar controversy has been considered by this Court wherein the Court has relied upon the earlier decision of this Court in WRIT-A No.12014/2021 (Pawan Kumar v. Engineer In Chief and Head of Department and others) , decided on 20.09.2021, which has been followed in a subsequent decision in WRIT-A No.3611/2021 (Vijay Kumar and 26 others v. Engineer In Chief and Head of Department, Irrigation and others) , which came to be decided on 08.07.2022
and the Court has declined to entertain the petition as it stood concluded.
It has also been pointed out that the issue that the Rules of 2015 have overriding effect and, therefore, the Rules which are relied upon by the petitioners do not come to their help.
Having taken note of the aforesaid decision as well as the decision of the Apex Court in the State of State of U.P. v. Karunesh Kumar and others, 2023 (1) ADJ 389 (SC) , the Court is not inclined to entertain the matter which is squarely covered and has rested the controversy.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed .
Order Date :- 9.2.2023 Rakesh/-
Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to appointment as Tube Well Operator pursuant to Advertisement No.15(3)/2016 due to non-publication of additional list.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pawan Kumar v. Engineer In Chief and Head of Department and othersFollowed¶10
WRIT-A No.12014/2021 (Pawan Kumar v. Engineer In Chief and Head of Department and others)
Vijay Kumar and 26 others v. Engineer In Chief and Head of Department, Irrigation and othersReferred¶10
WRIT-A No.3611/2021 (Vijay Kumar and 26 others v. Engineer In Chief and Head of Department, Irrigation and others)
State of U.P. v. Karunesh Kumar and othersRelied on¶13
State of U.P. v. Karunesh Kumar and others, 2023 (1) ADJ 389 (SC)
Ajeet Kumar Srivastava And 18 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Jaspreet Singh
Rakesh Prajapat
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
