Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30372 of 2003 Petitioner :- Smt. Renu Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- H.C. Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri H.C. Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention to para 47 of the writ petition, reads as under :-
"47. That the admitted position as contained in letter dated 24.8.2002 itself speaks that the selection to give appointments have been made in contravention of rules and constitutional commitments."
3. However, in the relief, I find that there is no selection/appointment of any person is under challenge and nobody has been impleaded. When confronted, learned counsel for petitioner could not dispute to this fact.
4. Petitioner is, however, claiming a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to give appointment but could not show any vested right in petitioner for appointment.
5. This writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Siddhant Sahu