State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Karunesh Kumar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1237

M. R. SHAH, M. M. SUNDRESH
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Karunesh Kumar – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant(s) Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Priya Maurya, Adv. Ms. Leelawati Suman, Adv. Mr. Dharampal Saini, Adv. Mr. Uday Prakash Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vishal Thakre, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Tota Ram, Adv. Mr. S.N. Raja, Adv. Mr. Gautam Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR Mr. V.K. Shukla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, AOR Mr. Ishaan Tiwari, Adv. Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR Mr. Arijit Sarkar, Adv. Ms. Nabeela Jamil, Adv. Mr. Sadashiv, AOR Mr. Raunak Parekh, Adv. Mr. P.V. Singh, Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Amit Wadhwa, Adv. Mr. Jetendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Vijendra Kumar Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Kalpana Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Mr. Varun Punia, AOR Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR Mr. Varun Singh, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mrinal Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Nazish Fatima, Adv. Ms. Savita Dhanda, Adv. Mr. D.D. Verma, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kr. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv. Mr. Suyash Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Shreya Mishra, Adv. Ms. Sumita Banu, Adv. Mr. Parvez Alam, Adv. Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, AOR Mr. Neeraj Aarora, AOR Mr. V.K. Subhramanian, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Yamini Sharma, Adv. Mr. Narendra Pal Sharma, Adv. Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, AOR Mr. Kaushal Yadav, AOR Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Maurya, Adv. Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ram Kishor Singh Yadav, Adv. Dr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Adv. Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sushant Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prithvi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Lomes, Adv. Mr. Ankur Yadav, AOR Mr. Nitin Singh, Adv. Mr. Kuldeep Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR

JUDGMENT :

M.M. SUNDRESH, J.

1. The decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in allowing the writ petition filed by the private Respondents, setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge is assailed before us. Candidates who waited in the wings, observing the legal journey, filed applications for impleadment seeking extended benefit of the impugned Judgment and Order.

2. The present appeals are filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh inter alia contending that the candidates who are not part of the list forwarded by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) were also directed to be considered in the vacancies arising pursuant to the selected candidates approved by the appointing authority, not taking up the jobs offered to the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Single Cadre, Group (C). The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the private Respondents, which was overturned by the Division Bench on the premise that Rule 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Adhikari Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “1978 Rules”), if given due interpretation, would

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 1237

M. R. SHAH, M. M. SUNDRESHState Of Uttar Pradesh – AppellantVersusKarunesh Kumar – Respondent

Cases Referred (13)

M. R. SHAH, M. M. SUNDRESH
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Karunesh Kumar – Respondent