Disposed¶11

Km. Jyoti Chaudhri v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2025WRIA/16060/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court 2025; WRIT - A No. 16060 of 2024; Km. Jyoti Chaudhri v. State of U.P.; Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.; Assistant Professor recruitment; non-joining of offered College; recast selection list / recast merit list; cancellation of candidature and appointment letter; communication of cancellation; another candidate appointed; writ petition disposed of with directions; liberty to challenge in accordance with law; neutral citation 2025:AHC:2692.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to communicate the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment letter to her within a week; liberty thereafter reserved to the petitioner to challenge the cancellation, if so advised, in accordance with law. ¶11

Km. Jyoti Chaudhri vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who did not join the College originally offered to her in the Assistant Professor recruitment process, should now be offered another College on the basis of the recast selection list. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

This writ petition is disposed of on the basis of the subsequent event mentioned by the learned Standing Counsel pursuant to written instructions.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The cancellation of the petitioner's appointment letter will be communicated to her within a week.

¶11

Key takeaways

Thereafter the petitioner will have liberty to challenge the cancellation, if so advised, in accordance with law.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT - A No. 16060 of 2024 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 10) | Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. | Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:2692 | Order Date 7.1.2025. Km. Jyoti Chaudhri, selected in an Assistant Professor recruitment process but who did not join the College originally offered to her, petitioned that a new College be allotted to her on the basis of the subsequently recast selection list. Through written instructions, the Learned Standing Counsel informed the Court that, since the petitioner had not joined the offered College within the stipulated period, her candidature was cancelled and another candidate appointed in her place; the petitioner asserted that no such cancellation letter had been communicated to her. Disposing of the writ petition, the Court directed that the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment letter be communicated to her within a week, thereafter leaving her at liberty to challenge it, if so advised, in accordance with law. No statutory provision or precedent case is cited; no monetary amount is involved.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2692

¶2

Court No. - 10

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16060 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Km. Jyoti Chaudhri Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Usha Kiran Counsel for Respondent :- Birendra Prasad Shukla,C.S.C.,Gagan Mehta

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

1.Heard Ms.Usha Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Birendra Prasad Shukla for the respondents and Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel.

¶7

It is not under much dispute that petitioner has not joined the College offered in pursuance of recruitment process of Assistant Professor and due to subsequent events merit list was recasted and probably petitioner ought to have been offered another College, but it appears that since the petitioner has not joined the College in pursuance of earlier offered post, no subsequent offer was communicated to her.

¶8

In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner has filed this writ petition that on the basis of recast selection list, a new College may be offered to her.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel on basis of written instructions submitted that since the petitioner has not joined at the offered College within the stipulated period, therefore, her candidature was cancelled and instead of her place some other candidate has been appointed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no such letter has been communicated to the petitioner and this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction that in case such subsequent event has taken place, petitioner may be at liberty to challenge it in accordance with law.

¶11

In the aforesaid circumstances, on basis of subsequent event as mentioned by learned Standing Counsel on basis of written instructions, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that cancellation of appointment letter of petitioner will be communicated to her within a week and thereafter petitioner will have liberty to challenge it, if so advised, in accordance with law.

¶12

Order Date :- 7.1.2025 SB

¶13

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Km. Jyoti Chaudhri v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Jyoti Chaudhri v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajguru Tomar vs State of Up and 3 Others

Kumkum vs State of Up and 5 Others

Anil Kumar Rai vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Krishna Srivastava vs State of Up and 4 Others

Ashutosh Dikshit vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Divyansh Pandey vs University of Allahabad and Another