Back
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH
Kamal Nayan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Neha Roy Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission/respondent no. 3; Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission/respondent no. 4 and Sri Gopal Chandra Saxena, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Present writ petition has been filed primarily to seek a direction upon respondent no. 2- Director, Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh to grant appointment to the petitioners (13), pursuant to the select list 10.12.2021 published by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPSSSC’) pursuant to Advertisement No. 22-Examination/2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Advertisement’). The other prayer made in the writ petition against Advertisement No. A-7/E-1/2021 dated 15.09.2021, is largely consequential. The petitioners seek protection of their rights under select list dated 10.12.2021 published pursuant to the Advertisement - qua 69 posts of Librarian, Grade C, advertised thereun
Point of Law : Selecting body does not have its right to alter the procedure for selection than what is prescribed under the relevant Service Rules, 2014 and Recruitment Rules, 2017.
Widening the field of eligibility, in view of an amendment in the Recruitment Rules, does not amount to changing the rules of the game in the midst of the selection process.
Important Point – Appointment – Introducing new requirements into selection process after entire selection process was completed amounted to changing rules of game after game was played which is not ....
Candidates participating in a recruitment process do not have a legal right to appointment if the selection process is found to be flawed and thus invalid.
The approval of maximum marks of the interview by the Government subsequent to the selection fulfilled the condition of Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2015, and the selection was held in accordance with t....
Candidates do not have a vested right to insist on the completion of a recruitment process if it is cancelled based on valid reasons, including changes in qualifications and reservation policies.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
