Allahabad High Court
Ayush Kumar vs Union Of India And 9 Others on 9 May, 2023
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:98906-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 200 of 2023
Appellant :- Ayush Kumar
Respondent :- Union Of India And 9 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Varun Mishra,Kamla Kant Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Pranay Krishna
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Varun Mishra learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Sri Pranay Krishna learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
The challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.7.2021 dismissing the writ petition and the judgment and order dated 14.10.2022 rejecting the review application filed by the appellant herein. The order impugned records that the petitioner making allegation of high level bungling, irregularities and illegalities committed in the selection undertaken for appointment to the post of Constable (G.D.) against the Advertisement dated 21.7.2018, filed a writ petition with the relief for quashing of the entire select list dated 21.1.2021 published by the respondent for the post in question. It was noted by the learned Single Judge that a Writ Petition No. 6334 of 2020 with similar allegations had been dismissed by this Court observing that merely on vague and unsubstantiated allegations, large scale recruitment is not liable to be interfered. The writ petition filed by the appellant herein had, thus, been dismissed in view of the observations recorded for dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition vide judgment and order dated 1.7.2021.
It seems that a review application has been filed on the ground that prayer nos. '3' and '4' in the writ petition had not been considered, wherein the petitioner had claimed joining on the post of Constable (G.D.) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR)-2018 in pursuance of Advertisement dated 21.7.2018 on the premise that he shall be given appointment on the left over vacancies on which the selected candidates did not join the post in question.
The learned Single Judge has rejected the review application noticing the law laid down by the Apex Court in Shankarsan Das vs. Union of India and others reported in 1991 SC 1612 noticing that no selected candidate has an indefeasible right to be reappointed. Moreover, the assertion that the vacancies exist cannot be a ground to review the judgment, merely on the plea that no counter affidavit has been filed.
We may record that on a query made by this Court, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there was no waiting list of the selected candidate. The select list had been exhausted with the issuance of the appointment letter to the candidates included in the select list. In case any selected candidate did not join the post in question or his appointment has been cancelled by any reason, subsequent to exhaustion of the select list, any other candidate who had participated in the selection in question cannot seek appointment against the vacancy which would have to be notified in the next selection.
The prayers nos. '2' and '3' made in the writ petition seeking a direction for consideration of the candidature against the left over vacancy on account of non-joining of the selected candidate, therefore, are found misconceived.
On both the above counts, no interference is warranted by this Court in the order impugned.
The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.
Order Date :- 9.5.2023
Brijesh
