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

Allahabad High Court
Smt. Janti Devi vs State Of U.P. & Others on 9 August, 2010
Chief Justice's Court

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1245 of 2010

Petitioner :- Smt. Janti Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- C.M. Rai
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Ferdino Inacio Rebello,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing
Counsel for the State.

The appellant was an applicant for the post of Angan Bari Worker
along with one Smt. Savita Shukla. Smt. Savita Shukla was
selected. The selection of Smt. Savita Shukla was challenged by
the appellant by filing a writ petition before this Court, which was
disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider
the grievances of the appellant. The competent authority decided
the matter in favour of Smt. Savita Shukla whereupon the
appellant herein again approached this Court by filing Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No.26534 of 2008, which is still pending.

In between, the authorities, after having found the documents
submitted by Smt. Savita Shukla to be incorrect, cancelled her
appointment and proceeded for fresh advertisement. The petition
giving rise to this appeal was filed by the appellant on the ground
that since she was at Sl. No.2 in the merit list, therefore, the
respondents should have offered appointment instead of
advertising the vacancy afresh. The learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition indicating that the selection is of the
year 2006 and more than four years have passed, therefore, it
would not be appropriate for the appellant to claim appointment
against the selection of 2006. However, the learned Judge
observed that the appellant may apply against the fresh

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the matter of
appointment and claim of the appellant was sub-judice, therefore,
this court in view of the cancellation of candidature of Smt. Savita
Shukla, should have directed the claim of the appellant to be
considered for being appointed as Angan Bari Worker in the

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that the
claim of the appellant has not found favour with the learned Single
Judge and even otherwise, in view of the fresh advertisement
having been made, the appellant can apply afresh and claim

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that
the appellant had been continuously pursuing the matter and also
filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.26534 of 2008, which is still,
stated to be pending, the claim of the appellant cannot diminish
and, therefore, the rights of the appellant, pending in the said writ
petition, have to be considered. In this view of the matter, issuance
of a fresh advertisement will impede the claim of the appellant and
we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge erred in
dismissing the writ petition.

In the light of the aforesaid, we set aside the order dated
28.07.2010, and remit the matter back to the learned Single Judge
with a request to hear the petition which has given rise to this
appeal as well as writ petition no. 26534 of 2008 simultaneously.

Till such disposal is made by this Court, the respondents shall not
proceed for finalizing any appointment pursuant to the fresh
advertisement. With the above observation, the appeal stands
disposed of.

Order Date :- 9.8.2010

(F.I. Rebello, C.J.)

(A.P. Sahi, J.)

Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.152 seconds.