Pratap Singh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Pratap Singh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner may be called for interview if a fresh recruitment process has not been initiated and vacancies are still available, upon his submitting a representation to the respondents, provided no other legal impediment exists; writ petition disposed of with these observations.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who was not permitted to participate in the interview scheduled on 23.03.2021 for the post of Principal, is entitled to any relief when the recruitment process has concluded and the waiting list is exhausted. +1 more

Court's answer

Even if the petitioner's submission that he was wrongly stopped from participation in the interview is accepted, the relief sought may not be granted in the circumstances then prevailing (recruitment concluded, waiting list exhausted).

Ratio / Principle

Any vacancy arising due to the resignation of a selected candidate would be subject to fresh recruitment.

Key takeaways

Because the petitioner had immediately approached the Court but the writ petition remained pending for four years to his prejudice, if a fresh recruitment process is still not initiated and vacancies are still available (due to resignation or otherwise), the petitioner may be called for interview, subject to his submitting a representation and there being no other legal impediment.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) disposed of WRIT - A No. 5166 of 2021 filed by Pratap Singh Tiwari against the State of U.P. and 2 others. The petition, filed in March 2021, had sought permission to participate in an interview scheduled on 23.03.2021 for the post of Principal in a Graduate College and Post Graduate College pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Commissioner. No interim order was granted and the petitioner never participated; by 2025 the recruitment process had concluded and the waiting list was exhausted. The Court noted a coordinate-bench judgment in Dr. Rituraj Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others (Writ-A No. 5075 of 2021, decided on 15.11.2022), which appeared to be against the petitioner, and observed that any vacancy arising from a selected candidate's resignation would be subject to fresh recruitment. Holding that the petitioner had approached the Court immediately but the petition remained pending for four years to his prejudice, the Court directed that if a fresh recruitment process is still not initiated and vacancies are still available (due to resignation or otherwise), the petitioner may be called for interview upon submitting a representation, if no other legal impediment exists. Writ petition disposed of with these observations (March 18, 2026).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 5166 of 2021

Pratap Singh Tiwari

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

	.....Respo	ndent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Atipriya Gautam, Ishir Sripat, Akhilendra Singh, Rakesh Path Krishna, Samarath Singh, Agarwal, Vinod Kumar Mishra	Kunwar ak, Ram Shivam
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Bhupendra Nath Singh, C.S.C.

Court No. - 32

HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Heard Sri Shivam Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondents.

This Court has passed following order on 17.12.2025 :-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This writ petition was filed in the month of March, 2021 with the prayer that the petitioner be permitted to participate in the interview which was scheduled on 23.03.2021 for the post of Principal in Graduate College and Post Graduate College on the basis of the advertisement issued by the Commissioner.

Admittedly, no interim order was granted and the petitioner therefore never participated in the interview and now in the year 2025 when much water has flown such as not only said recruitment process has already been concluded. Even waiting list is also exhausted, therefore there is a very little scope for consideration of prayer. Even if any vacancy has arisen due to resignation of a selected candidate would be subject to fresh recruitment.

The Court is of view that in above circumstances even if the submission of petitioner is accepted that he was wrongly stopped from participation in interview, relief sought may not be granted. Court also

WRIA No. 5166 of 2021

2

takes note of a judgement passed by coordinate bench in Dr. Rituraj Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others (Writ-A No. 5075 of 2021) alongwith connected writ petitions, decided on 15.11.2022, which appears to be against the petitioners.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks two weeks' time to lay hand on some judgements, which could favour petitioner's case in given circumstances.

Let this matter come up in the 3rd week of January, 2026. "

Even in above circumstances, a factor which goes in favour of petitioner that he has immediately approached this Court, however, present writ petition kept pending for 4 years, therefore, he is prejudiced, hence, this Court is of the view that if a fresh recruitment process is still not initiated and vacancies are still available (due to resignation or otherwise), petitioner may be called for interview, however, for that, petitioner has to submit a representation so that respondents may take a decision to call the petitioner for interview, if no other legal impediment exists.

Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations.

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)

March 18, 2026

N. Sinha

Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad