Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41732 of 2019 Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Gautam Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Vikas Budhwar
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Sri Ishan Shishu has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 1 which is taken on record.
Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent-corporation, Sri Ishan Shishu, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has questioned the advertisement dated 25th November, 2018 where under the location has come to be advertized as a location on a national highway New NH-233B.
The ground for assailing the same is that this location has been categorized as a state highway in the advertisement dated 25th of November, 2018 issued by the B.P.C.L. and, therefore, there is serious anomaly in the advertisement. He also take us to the letter issued by the B.P.C.L. dated 4.11.2019 to demonstrate that this highway which is being shown as a old state highway has yet not been notified as a national highway and, therefore, the corporation did commit error in issuing a defective advertisement regarding the location advertised and therefore, the petitioner did not get opportunity against the said advertisement.
Per contra, the argument advanced by learned counsel for respondent corporation is that the advertisement is of 25th November, 2018 pursuant to which the selection procedure has already been completed, moreover, the petitioner having not been the applicant, he cannot plead any genuine grievance regarding any prejudice caused to him nor, the petitioner filed any such application to demonstrate that he could not apply taking it to be that the advertisement was only for the national highway, his application was not replied to.
We made a pointed query to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has been the applicant against the advertisement dated 25th November, 2018, he admits that he has not been the applicant and he only submits that he could have been a prospective applicant had the advertisement be correct one. We find no justification from the petitioner for approaching after almost a year against the advertisement. Even otherwise we find that once the selection had already taken place, it would not be appropriate to interfere in the matter as no prejudice in our considered opinion is caused to the petitioner being not the applicant.
The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Shiraz