Gajraj Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1701 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2416 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Gajraj Singh And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Eduation Lko. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avdhesh Shukla,Pramod Kumar Verma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rahul Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Heard.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party nos.2 and 3 to call them for counselling and consider their candidature for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher against available vacancies in pursuance to Notification dated 20.12.2016 and 21.12.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the first counselling in pursuance to aforesaid advertisement was done on 18.03.2017 in which the petitioner did not appear. When they went to participate in the second counselling, it is claimed that they were not allowed to participate on the ground that they had not appeared in the first counselling. The second counselling took place on 23.04.2018. We are now in 2022. On being confronted, learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to a Single Judge judgment dated 01.11.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.11375 (S/S) of 2018 [Ram Janak Maurya & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] by which the said selection was quashed and the opposite parties were directed to hold a fresh selection in the light of directions issued therein. He also informs that Special Appeal bearing No.617 of 2018 [Ritesh Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.] was filed by some of the aggrieved private litigants whereupon an interim order was passed on 17.11.2018 by the Division Bench directing the respondent-State not to give effect to the directions given by the learned Single Judge with regard to selection and appointments qua appellants till the next date of listing. This interim order was confined to the appellants in the appeal.

Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the State says that the State also challenged the order of Hon'ble Single Judge referred hereinabove in appeal which is pending. Learned counsel for the State and B.S.A. say that this, however, does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as far as delay in approaching this Court is concerned to which Sri Shukla, learned counsel says that if the selection is set-aside and it is held again then the petitioners should be allowed to participate in the counselling.

It is not for this Court, at this belated stage, to delve into this issue, especially in view of the intent appearing from the interim order dated 17.11.2018 passed in Special Appeal No.617 of 2018 wherein the same has been confined to the appellants before the Court. The petitioners did not filed any writ petition earlier with regard to this grievance. The counselling was held in 2017 and 2018 and the advertisement itself is of 2016. There is no reason as to why the Court should interfere in this regard and consider the relief prayed for at this belated stage. If there is no legal impediment and the selection is held afresh and the petitioners are otherwise eligible and entitled to appear in counselling then they can always do so but not otherwise.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

(Rajan Roy,J.)

Order Date :- 28.4.2022

Shanu/-