Dushyant Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. & Others

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 6310 ALL
Judgement Date : 5 December, 2011

Allahabad High Court
Dushyant Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. & Others on 5 December, 2011
Bench: V.K. Shukla



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 39
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 69795 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Dushyant Pratap Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Ashok Kumar Rai
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anuj Kumar
 

 

 
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Learned standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. Sri Anuj Kumar, advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.5. Issue notice to respondent No.6.

Each one of the respondents is granted six weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within next two weeks.

List thereafter.

It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that for making selection and appointment on the post of Gram Rozgar Sewak, proceedings were undertaken, wherein  selection of one Randeep Pratap Singh had been finalized. Subsequently, said Randeep Pratap Singh was selected for undertaking BTC training and in this background, he chose to tender his resignation, and accordingly, the post of Rozgar Sewak fell vacant. Petitioner's contention is that thereafter fresh selection proceedings for the post in question was undertaken and the name of petitioner had been finalized. At the said point of time attempt was being made to ensure appointment to respondent No.6, Kamlesh Verma, who was having second position in earlier selection wherein Randeem Pratap Singh had been selected and subsequently tendered resignation. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred writ petition No.35424 of 2011 before this Court, and this Court  vide order dated 04.07.2011 asked the authority concerned to take decision in the matter. Thereafter totally arbitrary and unreasonable decision has been taken  by illegally concluding that manipulations and manoeuvrings had been done by the petitioner qua his residence  of village Kuretha, Tehsil Bamaur, District Jhansi, whereas  fact of the matter is that the petitioner is permanent resident of village Kota, Tehsil Madhogarh, District Jalaun. Petitioner submits that there were public documents in his favour much prior to the selection of 2007-08 regarding his residence at village Kuretha, Tehsil Bamaur, District Jhansi, but the same have been ignored, and wrongly, it has been sought to be suggested that once on earlier occasion selection proceedings had been finalized and in case the first selected candidate, viz., Randeep Pratap Singh tendered resignation, the next one i.e. respondent No.6 can be offered appointment on the post of Rozgar Sewak, which in the facts and circumstances of the case and in terms of the policy so formulated could not have been done.

-2-

Prima facie the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner appears to have some substances; in such a situation till the next date of listing operation of the impugned order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the Block Development Officer, Bamaur, District Jhansi is directed to be kept in abeyance.

Order Date :- 5.12.2011 SRY