Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ajay Bhanot, Siddharth Khare
Anil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Bhanot, J.
1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. By the impugned order dated 28.11.2019, the petitioner has been denied appointment as Assistant Teacher on the footing that he had obtained lower marks than last selected candidate in all the six districts for which he opted in the application form.
3. Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has higher marks than other candidates in different districts and further, a number of vacancies are existing in different districts. The petitioner can be appointed against the said vacancies.
4. Shri K Shahi, learned counsel for the BSA submits that the petitioner cannot seek appointment beyond his options. The relevant rule pertaining to filling up the options is extracted hereunder:
5. Perusal of the aforesaid Rule shows that the aforesaid requirement for filling up options in different is a directory in nature. At best the petitioner is required to fill up one option. The candidates cannot be non-suited for failing to fill 75 options pertaining to all t
The directory nature of preference in recruitment allows candidates to be considered for unselected positions without abandoning their claims.
Recruitment processes must prioritize merit over district preferences, particularly when unfilled vacancies exist, ensuring compliance with constitutional guarantees of equality in public employment.
Candidates indicating preference for one service and failing to meet cut-off marks cannot claim selection in others, as upheld by the Supreme Court.
Preference based on district domicile in teacher selection cannot override merit; inclusion in the merit list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.
Preference in public service selection cannot override established merit, as legal precedent dictates that meritorious candidates must be prioritized irrespective of residency criteria.
The allocation of postings must be fair, transparent, and based on established merit principles, ensuring that no employee is arbitrarily deprived of their rightful position.
A candidate's inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment; the authorities have discretion in the selection process.
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
