Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Nitish Maurya – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. selection process details and results. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. summary of court directions and responses. (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. legislative changes impacting recruitment. (Para 5) |
| 4. contention about waiting list criteria. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's analysis on continuity of selection processes. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. interpretation of waiting list regulations. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. final decision on petitions. (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
1. Petitioners in all writ petitions have participated in a selection process commenced in pursuance of Adv. No. 01/2016 issued by U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad for appointment of Assistant Teachers (LT Grade) in privately managed recognized and aided Higher Secondary Schools in the State. The advertisement was for filling up 7950 posts of Assistant Teachers (LT Grade) in 22 different subjects.
2. Petitioners after crossing hurdle of written examination participated in interview on different dates in the year 2020 and finally result was declared on different dates from December, 2020 to July, 2021. Name of petitioners were not found in merit list as well as in waiting list whi
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.
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 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.
Waiting list candidates entitled to appointment for vacancies within validity period, tolled by judicial proceedings; cannot be denied arbitrarily.
The court emphasized the obligation to maintain a Reserve Panel for timely appointments, asserting candidates have a legitimate expectation to be considered for unfilled vacancies, as mandated by ear....
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
