Rahul Singh vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 8402 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Chief Justice's Court
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 238 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- Rahul Singh
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhat Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhanshu Chauhan
 

 
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

Application for Condonation of Delay No. 82009 of 2021

Application for condonation of delay in filing the special appeal is allowed.

The defect stands cured.

Office to allot regular number.

Memo of Appeal

By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 22.03.2021 whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

The writ petition was preferred in reference to recruitment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) held in the year 2016. The appointment pursuant to the recruitment was made. The appellant/petitioner however made a representation on 22nd December, 2017 without making a claim for his appointment. In any case, after the representation in the year 2017, the appellant/petitioner did not file writ petition immediately when no heed to it was paid. He waited for the outcome for a period of more than four years before filing of the writ petition. It is admitted by the counsel for the appellant that an advertisement for the new recruitment has again been issued by the respondents.

At this stage, the prayer made by the appellant/petitioner for his appointment pursuant to the recruitment of 2016 or for a decision of his representation would not be proper. It is not only that the writ petition was hit by laches but the representation was made for fishing inquiry.

Counsel for the appellant/petitioner was asked as to whether the appellant stood at serial number 37 of the merit list so as the claim of his appointment. It is looking to the allegations about the appointment of 36 candidates out of 37 vacancies so advertised. The claim against one left out vacancy could have been made by a person next in the merit. The appellant/petitioner has not made statement about merit position or supplied any material for it. Even the counsel for the appellant could not show merit position of the appellant in the merit list so as to make a claim for his appointment.

In those circumstances, the direction for consideration of the representation made by the appellant/petitioner would be an exercise in futility.

For the aforesaid reason, learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and otherwise we do not find any merit in the appeal so as to issue any direction.

It, accordingly, fails and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 22.7.2021

Nirmal_Sinha

(Manish Kumar, J.) (Munishwar Nath Bhandari, A.C.J.)