Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.


Allahabad High Court
Bashishtha Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 29 January, 2010
Court No. - 26

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30733 of 1996

Petitioner :- Bashishtha Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- S.P. Pandey,B. Singh Pankaj
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.P. Pandey,C.B.
Gupta,D.P.Pandeya,H.R.Yadav,Harendra Yadav

Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Standing Counsel.

The claim set up by the petitioners in the present writ petition is
that in spite of more collection, the petitioners have not been given
appointment on the post of regular Collection Amin and instead
respondents no.6 and 7 have been given appointment on the post
of regular Collection Amin. By order dated 4.1.2010 on the
directions issued by this Court, learned Standing Counsel filed a
supplementary affidavit showing therein that the collection of
respondents no.6 and 7 was more than the petitioners. The
petitioners were directed to show any document to this effect that
they were having more collection than respondents no. 6 and 7.

A supplementary affidavit has been filed stating the fact but no
documentary evidence has been annexed with the supplementary
affidavit showing therein that the collection of the petitioners was
more than respondents no.6 and 7.

In such circumstances, it cannot be said or held that the
appointments of respondents no. 6 and 7 are in any way illegal and
the petitioners were entitled to get the appointment.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.

No order is passed as to costs

Order Date :- 29.1.2010
V.Sri/-


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.505 seconds.