Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22850 of 2017 Petitioner :- Munna Pandey And 3 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidhya Shanker Tiwari,Anil Kumar Ray Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This writ petition is directed against an order dated 1.3.2017, whereby petitioner's representation has been rejected. It appears that petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.3069 of 2017, which was disposed of, vide following orders passed on 20.1.2017:-
"The petitioners claims that they had appeared in a selection for appointment on the post of Instructor in the State Industrial Training Institutes in pursuance of an advertisement dated 7 November 2014. The petitioners have applied for the trade mentioned at Serial No. 42 of the advertisement i.e. 'Hindi Language'. The interview was conducted on 2 March 2015. The grievance of the petitioners is that the result of Hindi trade, in which the petitioners had applied, has not been declared so far, although, the result of other trades has been declared long back.
Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents very fairly stated that the second respondent would examine the grievance of the petitioners, in case they approach him.
Accordingly and in view of the submissions made, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the second respondent with a fresh representation and a certified copy of this order. In that event, the second respondent shall take remedial measures in the matter expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of next two months."
Grievance of petitioner is that though he had applied for the post of Hindi Stenographer, pursuant to advertisement issued on 7.11.2014, for which interview was also held on 2nd March, 2015 and result has been declared for other post notified by the same advertisement, but result in respect of selection to the post of Stenographer in Hindi has not been declared. The order under challenge records that on account of change in the syllabus, there is no requirement of Hindi Stenographer, and consequently, no recruitment has been made on the post.
Law is settled that mere selection confers no right, unless the action itself is arbitrary (see: Sankarsan Dash v. Union of India AIR 1991 SC 1612). Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that no appointment has been made of any other candidate also. In case the employers have taken a decision not to recruit persons due to lack of requirement and no discrimination is otherwise pointed out, this Court would not be justified in interfering with the matter.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 Anil