Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6688 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ashok Kushwaha Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satyaveer Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's grievances are similar to the grievances made by the petitioners of Writ A No 4041 of 2019 annexed as Annexure 12 to the present writ petition. The operative portion of the order dated 14.3.2019 in the aforesaid writ petition is reproduced below.
"In the facts and circumstances, noticed above, this writ petition stands disposed of requiring the second respondent to examine the grievance of petitioner, as noticed above, keeping in view the observations made by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10808 of 2017, so as to ensure that a selected candidate is allowed to work in any of the recognized institution where vacancy exists. Necessary orders in that regard would be passed by the Board, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
It is clarified that in case the Board finds that the vacancy where petitioner was initially placed is still available, it would be open for it to place the petitioner in that institution also."
The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 contends that there is a delay on the part of the petitioner as his claim was rejected in the year 2016 and the petitioner has not explained the delay in this petition. He also submits that while deciding the claim of the petitioner the authority may also consider the full Bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition No 16406 of 2011 Prashant Kumar Katiyar Vs State of U.P. and others rendered on 19.12.2012.
Learned counsel for the State has reiterated the above submissions.
However, the learned counsel for the respondents have not disputed the orders passed by this Court.
Without going into the merit of this case, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the second respondent to examine the grievance of petitioner, as noticed above, keeping in view the observations made by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10808 of 2017, so as to ensure that a selected candidate is allowed to work in any of the recognized institution where vacancy exists. Necessary orders in that regard would be passed by the Board, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
It is clarified that in case the Board finds that the vacancy where petitioner was initially placed is still available, it would be open for it to place the petitioner in that institution also.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 MH