Back
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Sudhanshu Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Ms. Usha Kiran, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent(s) and Sri Gagan Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commission.
2. The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.7.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Court in Writ - A No. 8718 of 2024 (Sudhanshu Aggarwal v. State of U.P. and others).
3. The facts of the case as emerging from the records are that the writ petition had been filed seeking a direction to the opposite parties to give him a choice for appointment as Assistant Professor, Mathematics at Hindu College Moradabad or K.G.K.P.G. College Moradabad instead of Satish Chandra College, Ballia and permit him to join on any of the aforesaid two posts.
4. The selection process, pursuant to an advertisement, bearing Advertisement No. 50 of 2021, was initiated for making selections for appointment to the posts of Assistant Professors in non-Government aided colleges, which included 96 posts in the subject of Mathematics. The petitioner, upon decla
A candidate's inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment; the authorities have discretion in the selection process.
The expiration of a select list due to inaction and erroneous decision of the authorities cannot deprive a selected candidate of appointment.
Candidates on a merit list do not have an indefeasible right to appointment if they fail to meet the prescribed cut-off marks, emphasizing the need for fair recruitment processes.
The Officiating Principal has the right to challenge the appointment of a regularly selected candidate, and appointments made contrary to statutory provisions are invalid.
Selection Committee cannot disqualify candidates based on limited choice preferences; disqualification must align with statutory Recruitment Rules.
Selected candidates do not have an indefeasible right to appointment; the state may issue new advertisements and change qualifications without legal obligation to fill prior vacancies.
The Selection Committee lacks authority to disqualify a candidate based solely on limited school choices after qualifying in a merit list, as per the Recruitment Rules.
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
