Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, AJIT KUMAR, VIKAS BUDHWAR
Satya Prakash Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of vacancies (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 9) |
| 2. argument regarding inclusion of future vacancies (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 20) |
| 3. determination of vacancies as per statutory rules (Para 25 , 30 , 32 , 36 , 53) |
| 4. exclusion of future vacancies is legally valid (Para 39 , 63) |
| 5. final dismissal of appeals (Para 64 , 65) |
JUDGMENT :
1. A Division Bench, having noticed divergent views expressed by an earlier Division Bench and a Single Judge Bench on the same controversy, passed the following order on 03.02.2025:
"1. The special appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 06.11.2019 dismissing the writ petition of the appellants. The petitioners had challenged a communication sent by the office of Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department of the State U.P. dated 21.06.2018 addressed to the State Government, whereby recommendation was made to fill up only 394 post falling vacant in the recruitment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 through the State Engineering Services Recruitment Examination, 2014. The main ground of challenge was that the advertisement was issued on 24.11.2013 for filling up 640 posts and after issuance of advertisement, the
The court upheld the authority of the State to adjust recruitment vacancies, emphasizing the proper application of statutory rules regarding 'year of recruitment' and ensuring adherence to constituti....
The court upheld the principle that recruitment vacancies must be determined based solely on existing vacancies for the recruitment year, excluding anticipated future vacancies per statutory rules.
Post of Senior Clerk/Assistant Treasury Accountant Qualifications - It is settled law that there is no legal right vested in candidates to be selected for appointment - Selected candidates have only ....
Merely being included in a select list does not provide an indefeasible right to appointment; the State can regulate vacancies as per policy needs, provided there is no arbitrariness.
The enhancement of posts in a recruitment process without reopening applications violates the right to equal opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
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
