The petitioner sought to challenge the selection of a candidate appointed in 2009 after a lapse of 12 years, having never contested the prior 2008 selection. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the delay precludes a claim for consideration without a fresh vacancy application.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182195
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9507 of 2023
Petitioner :- Rajneesh Kumar Arya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prateeyush Kumar Pathak,Peeyush Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sher Bahadur Singh
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri P.K.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
The petitioner claims to be one of the applicant against the post in question advertised in the year 2008. One Seema was selected by resolution passed by the Gram Sabha, however petitioner never challenged the selection of Seema.
It transpires that subsequently since contract in respect of selected candidate came to be rescinded and the Gram Sabha, as is alleged selected another person subsequently, namely Onkar in the year 2009, petitioner now questions his continuance. From the 2009, 12 years have passed and petitioner never challenged selection of Onkar over these years, nor he has been applicant in the year 2009 against post in question .
Accordingly, at this stage, after more than a decade, he cannot come with plea that his candidature may be accorded due consideration. Nowhere it has been pleaded in the entire writ petition as to whether petitioner was applicant in the year 2009 when Onkar was selected. Merely because certain contractual appointments have been made in past, it would not entitle petitioner to approach the Court for consideration of his candidature after more than a decade of selection. It is always open for him to apply as and when vacancy is advertised afresh for making such contractual appointments and the Gram Sabha proceeds to make appointment afresh.
Subject to aforesaid, this petition stands dismissed, consigned to records.
Order Date :- 20.9.2023 Sanjeev
Digitally signed by :- SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner can challenge the selection of a candidate more than a decade after the selection was made without having challenged it earlier.
Whether contractual appointments of the past entitle the petitioner to seek reconsideration of his candidature after a long lapse of time.
Rajneesh Kumar Arya
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Ajit Kumar
Sanjeev Ranjan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
