High CourtsDivision Bench

Rajendra Prasad vs State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 15 November 2010 · Citation: (2001) 2 UPLBEC 1794

HON’BLE JUDGES
Yogesh Chandra Gupta, J · Vineet Saran, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Special Appeal No. 1399 of 2003
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 458 words
1.

Heard Sri L.C. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the record.

2.

By means of this Special Appeal the appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 1.12.2003 passed b a learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 38624 of 2002 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

3.

Briefly, the facts of this case are that in the year 1995 the petitioner-appellant had applied and participated in the process for recruitment of Class IV posts in Zila Panchayat, Varanasi. Accordingly to the petitioner, he was selected and placed at serial No. 4 of the select list. Since the petitioner did not join the post within the stipulated period, the post was offered to Respondent No. 4 Subedar Ram, who was in the waiting list.

4.

After seven years, on 9.8.2002 the petitioner filed a representation before the District Magistrate, Varanasi and thereafter immediately filed this writ petition. It is not his case that he had ever represented to the Zila Panchayat, Varanasi where he seeks appointment on a Class IV post. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition primarily on the ground that the petitioner has approached this Court after seven years and also on the ground that the select list was pasted on the notice board and the petitioner was informed about his selection and he did not join within the time granted. Learned Counsel for the appellant has, however, submitted that the select list was not published nor pasted on the notice board and thus the petitioner-appellant had no knowledge of the same. He learnt about the same only in August, 2002 and thereafter approached the District Magistrate by way of filing a representation.

5.

Firstly, it has not been disclosed by the appellant as to how he came to know of the select list and the joining of respondent No. 4 after seven years. It has also not been disclosed as to why the petitioner approached the District Magistrate when according to his own case he was selected on a class IV post in Zila Panchayat, Varanasi. A person after going through the selection proceed would not wait for seven years for declaration of the result. If the petitioner-appellant was at all interested in joining the post, he ought to approached the Zila Panchayat and not the District Magistrate. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the petitioner-appellant that he has ever approached the Zila Panchayat.

6.

In such view of the matter, besides on merits, the writ petition has rightly been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of laches. No good ground is made out for interference with the impugned order.

7.

This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.