Vageesh Kumar Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2727 ALL

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2727 ALL
Judgement Date : 19 February, 2021

Allahabad High Court

Vageesh Kumar Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 February, 2021

Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1328 of 2020
 

 
Appellant :- Vageesh Kumar Tiwari
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Vikas Budhwar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avneesh Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2020

1. Heard on the application for condonation of delay. The delay is of 307 days in filing the appeal.

2. The affidavit in support to the application shows reasons.

3. The application aforesaid is not contested by the side opposite and accordingly delay in filing appeal is condoned.

4. The application is allowed with the aforesaid.

Order of Appeal

1. Heard Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4.

2. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 14.01.2020 whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

3. It is a case where petitioner was engaged on Class III post. He could not be continued on the said post on availability of a regularly selected person pursuant to the advertisement by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner-appellant was, however, continued on the lower post of Class IV. The writ petition was filed to claim regularization on Class III post. The prayer aforesaid was not accepted by the learned Single Judge. It is not only for the reason that a regularly selected candidate became available but even for the reason that petitioner did not apply for his selection pursuant to advertisement for direct recruitment.

4. Taking aforesaid into consideration, we do not find any error in the judgment. The law on the issue is settled. Once a regularly selected candidate becomes available, the person appointed on ad hoc or temporary basis has to make room for him.

5. Accordingly, no reason remains for us to cause interference in the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge.

6. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 19.2.2021