Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Ajit Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek additional list for forest guard appointments. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding the need for an additional list. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court emphasizes adherence to recruitment rules. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. writ petition dismissed; no merit found. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajit Kumar, J.
1. Heard Sri Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Maurya, learned counsel for the respondents and Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Petitioners who were applicants for the post advertised by the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as Commission) vide advertisement no.05 Examination/2019, have approached this Court for a relief in the nature of writ of mandamus to command the respondent-Commission to prepare and declare an additional list to the list of recommendation for appointment on the post of Forest Guard pursuant to the examination held under the advertisement.
3. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the event candidates already selected may not turn up to join, t
The court ruled that without statutory provisions for an additional list, the selection body cannot prepare one, reaffirming that placement in a select list does not guarantee appointment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the action of the respondents in not preparing a waiting list in compliance with Rule 15(3) of Rules 1992 was arbitrary and against the spirit....
Sub-clause (vi) of Rule 277A of Rules of 1996 read as Authorized Agency shall prepare category wise select list of candidates declared successful on basis of criteria of selection laid down.
The waiting list candidates have the right to claim appointment if the candidates from the main list do not join, and the State must provide justifiable, non-arbitrary reasons for not filling up the ....
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.
Point of law: Recruitment - duty of the Public Service Commission is to make available to the Government a complete list of qualified candidates arranged in order of merit. Thereafter the Government ....
The petitioner's claim for appointment on the post of JLO from the reserved waiting list was found to be valid as he approached the Court before the expiry of the wait list, and the Court allowed the....
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
