Back
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
Sushil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Legislative Council U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) :
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, who were appointed on contractual basis as per the scheme contained in the Government Order No. A-2/234/10-98-24(6)97 dated 22.5.1998 issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Uttar Pradesh, providing that appointment to fill up vacancies in Legislative Council Secretariat arising in Class-III and Class-IV posts would be made on temporary/daily-wage-basis for a maximum period of six months at a time, and the said Government Order specifically mentioned that employees, appointed on temporary and daily-wage-basis, shall not have any claim for regularization.
2. The petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were given contractual appointments on the post of assistant review officer vide orders dated 20.11.2012, 11.1.2011 and 24.12.2014 respectively.
3. The service conditions of officers/employees of Legislative Council Secretariat are governed by the U.P. Legislative Council Secretariat (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to at the ''Rules, 1976'') framed under Article 187(B) of the Constitution of India. The Rules,
Public recruitment processes must ensure fairness and legality, with allegations of irregularities requiring substantial proof to warrant judicial intervention.
The selection process must be fair and transparent; systemic irregularities can invalidate the entire process, even if some candidates are innocent of wrongdoing.
A candidate cannot challenge a selection process after participating and being unsuccessful; such claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
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.
Employment and Service matter - Grade-IV employees - Selection process - Selection process is not subject matter of challenge in absence of any grounds, subsequent action of issuing appointment order....
(1) Appointment – Normally, it is not for courts to interfere unless process smacks of mala fides – However, right to be considered for public employment being a Fundamental Right, it would be safe a....
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
