Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Gaurav Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Up – Respondent
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard S/Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Abhishek Kumar Saroj, Rahul Agarwal, Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, Ashwani Kumar Yadav, Ashutosh Pandey and Praveen Kumar Mishra, learned advocates for petitioners, S/Sri K. Shahi, Anil Kumar Singh and Aakash Rai, learned advocates for UP Education Services Selection Commission, Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, Sri D.P. Singh and Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned advocates appearing for State.
2. Number of petitioners in present bunch of writ petitions are in long drawn litigation and are waiting for outcome of their grievances which commenced when they have participated in a direct recruitment process initiated for appointment of numbers of Trained Graduate Teachers (T.G.T.) in different subjects in numbers of Non-Government Inter Colleges/High Schools in State of U.P. by Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as “Board”) through an Adv. No.01/2013, in which they were declared successful.
3. Some of petitioners being aggrieved that since number of posts. so advertised, were reduced and due to that they were not allotted colleges, therefore, they filed a Writ A No. 22128 of 2018 (S
The court emphasized the obligation of the Board to prepare a select panel larger than advertised vacancies, reaffirming that mere selection does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.
Selection boards have discretion to prepare waiting lists up to 25% of vacancies, not mandated to reach exactly that number, ensuring reasonable timelines for the recruitment process.
Appointment – A Panel or a Merit List cannot be treated as if it exists in perpetuity, which will facilitate making appointments as and when required – Even when vacancies are notified and adequate n....
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 government is not obligated to fill all advertised posts, and candidates have no fundamental right to be appointed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the right of the petitioners to be considered for appointment, the obligation of the employer to publish the panels, and the impact of pending cour....
The court established that recruitment processes must adhere to the legal framework in place at the time of vacancy and emphasized the necessity of public advertisement for fair selection.
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
