Back
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 vacancies could not have been reduced and that it was permissible to include future vacancies of next three recruitment years. Before the learned Single Judge, reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment in Writ (S.B.) No. 1596 of 2016 where the Division Bench declined to accept challenge to the requisition dated 07.11.2013 by the Secretar
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.
It clearly emerges that in the event the performance of ineligible candidates in the written examination, held on are taken into consideration in shortlisting the candidates for personality test/inte....
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.
Promotions for part-time casual labourers to Group D posts can be claimed under the 25% quota if vacancies exist in neighboring divisions, as clarified by the Tribunal's interpretation of the term 'n....
Candidates do not have a vested right to insist on the completion of a recruitment process if it is cancelled based on valid reasons, including changes in qualifications and reservation policies.
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
