Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Yogendra Singh Yadav vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|19 August, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9837 of 2021 Petitioner :- Yogendra Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Group 'D' employee in the Police Department, which relates to District Unnao in pursuance of the interview dated 16.08.2013 towards the Advertisement No.BHA-77/2013 dated 22.06.2013.
II. To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
III. Award the cost of the petition to the Petitioner."
The petitioner pursuant to an advertisement No.BHA-77/2013 dated 22.06.2013 submitted application for consideration for appointment as Group 'D' employee in the police department. The petitioner was issued call letter on 16.08.2013. The petitioner appeared in the interview on 05.09.2013 at Police Lines, Unnao. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner succeeded in the physical eligibility test and cycle running test and was found eligible candidate.
The case of the petitioner is that he was informed by the competent authority that call letter for joining on the respective post would be sent to the selected candidates by registered post.
It is stated that police verification of the petitioner was also done. The petitioner was waiting for the call letter, but he did not receive any call letter. Consequently, petitioner has filed several representations to the authority concerned for issuing call letter. According to petitioner, he was orally assured by the authority that he would be absorbed on some other posts.
It appears that petitioner has obtained information under Right To Information Act in respect of Recruitment-2013 of Class-IV employee, copy of which is annexed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition. The petitioner was informed under Right To Information Act that selection of Class-IV employee of Recruitment-2013 has been cancelled due to which appointment letter could not be issued to him.
The relevant extract of the information under Right to Information Act supplied to the petitioner is being reproduced herein-below:-
"उपररक ससदरर मम बबनदववर ससचनव बनमनवत हह। 1- वरर-2013 मम ससधस रतर कक अनतररत चतदरर शकणस कक रतर पबकयव शदर कक रयस रस जजसमम आवकदक दवरव आवकदन पत बदयव रयव रव सवकवतकवर तरव चररत सतयवपन आबद कक कवयरववहस पसणर करवयस जव रहस रस बकनतद रतर पबकयव बनरसत हर जवनक कक कवरण बकसस कर रस बनयबद क आदकश जवरस नहस बकयव रयव रव। 2- रतर पबकयव बनरसत हरनक कक कवरण बनयबद क आदकश जवरस नहस बकयव रयव हह।"
Be that as it may, the petitioner appeared in a selection for recruitment of Class-IV employee in respect of advertisement dated 22.06.2013. The petitioner appeared in the interview on 05.09.2013. The petitioner did not approach this Court earlier and after about 8 years, he has approached this Court seeking the reliefs extracted above. There is delay of 8 years in filing the writ petition without there being any explanation for the same.
Further, petitioner has been informed under Right To Information Act that selection proceeding in respect of Class-IV employee of Recruitment-2013 has been cancelled, and therefore, no appointment letter could be issued to him.
It is settled in law that mere selection does not give indefeasible right to petitioner for appointment. The selection proceeding has been cancelled which has not been challenged by the petitioner. Further, there is inordinate delay of about 8 years in filing the writ petition and therefore, writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. In such circumstances, no writ of mandamus for issue of appointment letter, as prayed by the petitioner, can be issued.
Thus, for the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.8.2021 Sattyarth
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Yogendra Singh Yadav vs State Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
19 August, 2021
Judges
  • Saral Srivastava
Advocates
  • Santosh Kumar Tiwari