# Dheeraj Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 428
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-05-06
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.45091 of 2002
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dheeraj-kumar-dubey-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40466
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-
Article
226-
Service Law- Right of appointment-69
posts of Gram Vikas Adhikari- advertised
out of 67 candidates from the merit list
as well 2 posts by the candidates from
waiting list occupied- subsequently- 28
post,
further
advertised-
petitioner
claimed the same to be ful filled by the
candidates from waiting list- held the
moment on which the future vacancy
advertised- the waiting list comes to an
end and cannot be utilized further.

Held- Para 6

The judgment cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is totally
distinguishable. That was a case where
the candidates name was found in the
select list, but in the present case, the
petitioner's name was only found in the
waiting list which came to an end upon
the filling up of the entire vacancies that
were advertised. As stated earlier, once
the vacancies are filled up, the waiting
list comes to an end and cannot be
utilized any further.
Case law discussed:
1996(3) SCC 273
1999(3) UPLBEC 1731
1991(3) SCC-47
2001(6) SCC-380
2003(10) SCC-136
2002 SCC (5) 195
1993(1) SLR-44

## Text

428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005

10. Let the applicant Vikas involved
in case crime no. 51 of 2005, under
Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.
Kankar Khera, District Meerut be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond
and two sureties each in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. Meerut.
Application Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.45091 of 2002

Dheeraj Kumar Dubey
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Niraj Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Rai
S.C.

Constitution
of
India-
Article
226-
Service Law- Right of appointment-69
posts of Gram Vikas Adhikari- advertised
out of 67 candidates from the merit list
as well 2 posts by the candidates from
waiting list occupied- subsequently- 28
post,
further
advertised-
petitioner
claimed the same to be ful filled by the
candidates from waiting list- held the
moment on which the future vacancy
advertised- the waiting list comes to an
end and cannot be utilized further.

Held- Para 6

The judgment cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is totally
distinguishable. That was a case where
the candidates name was found in the
select list, but in the present case, the
petitioner's name was only found in the
waiting list which came to an end upon
the filling up of the entire vacancies that
were advertised. As stated earlier, once
the vacancies are filled up, the waiting
list comes to an end and cannot be
utilized any further.
Case law discussed:
1996(3) SCC 273
1999(3) UPLBEC 1731
1991(3) SCC-47
2001(6) SCC-380
2003(10) SCC-136
2002 SCC (5) 195
1993(1) SLR-44

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Various posts were advertised in
the year 1998 for an appointment of a
Gram Vikas Adhikari. The petitioner
applied and appeared in the written
examination, in which he was successful
and thereafter appeared in the interview
before the District Committee. A select
list was issued in which the petitioner was
placed at serial No.2 of the list of the
waiting candidates. Out of 69 posts, 67
posts were filled up from the select list
and by an order dated 7.8.2001, two
persons from the waiting list, namely,
Raghvendra Singh and Lal Chandra were
appointed. The petitioner contended that
by
an
order
dated
28.1.2000,
the
Additional Commissioner Administration
Rural Development, U.P. Lucknow had
written a letter to all the District
Development Officers in the State of U.P.
to indicate the number of vacancies
existing on the post of Gram Vikas
Adhikari. Pursuant to the said letter, the
District Development Officer, Gorakhpur
by a letter dated 9.2.2000 intimated that
twenty two posts were vacant in his
region. The petitioner submitted that
when two persons from the waiting list
2 All] Dheeraj Kumar Dubey V. State of U.P. and others

 429
were appointed on 7.8.2001 and there
existed
twenty
two
vacancies,
the
petitioner
should
have
also
been
appointed from the waiting list as he was
placed at serial No.2 in the waiting list.
The petitioner contended that he made
various representations to the authorities
and, eventually, when no action was taken
by
the
respondents,
the
petitioner
approached this Court and filed the
present writ petition praying that he
should be appointed on the post of a Gram
Panchayat Vikas Adhikari from the
waiting list and that the same benefit
should be given to him as given to the two
persons who were earlier appointed by an
order dated 7.8.2001.

2. The respondents have filed a
counter affidavit and have submitted that
out of the 69 posts that were advertised,
67 posts were filled up from those
candidates whose name were found in the
select list and subsequently, the two
vacant posts were filled up from the
candidates in the waiting list. One
candidate was taken from the General
category from the waiting list and the
second candidate was taken from the
waiting list of the Scheduled Caste and in
this manner, all the 69 posts so advertised,
were duly filled up. The respondents
submitted that since the petitioner was
placed at serial No.2 of the waiting list, he
could not be appointed. It was further
submitted that since the entire posts so
advertised had been filled up, the waiting
list came to an end and no further
appointment could be made from the
waiting list in the subsequent vacancy that
came into existence.

3. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that since there are
vacancies existing, the waiting list should
be utilized and that the petitioner should
be given an appointment. In support of his
submission, the petitioner relied upon a
judgment of the Supreme Court in S.
Govindaraju vs. Karnataka S.R.T.C.
and another 1996 (3) SCC 273.

Heard Sri Niraj Tiwari, the learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K.
Rai, the learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents.

4. The life of a waiting list comes to
an end, the moment the vacancies so
advertised are filled up. The waiting list
cannot be utilised to fill up the vacancies
that had not been advertised nor can it be
utilised fill up those vacancies which
came into existence subsequently after the
issuance of the advertisement. In Indian
Airlines Ltd. vs. Samaresh Bhowmick
and others, 1999 (3) UPLBEC 1731, the
Supreme Court held that the select list
after the expiry of its validity period
cannot be made available for filling up
future vacancies.

5. In any case, a candidate in the
waiting
list
does
not
acquire
any
indefeasible right to be appointed against
a vacancy. The mere fact that the
petitioner's name was found in the
waiting list does not mean that the
petitioner has a bonafide right for an
appointment. A Constitutional Bench of
the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash
v. Union of India, 1991[3] SCC 47 held-
"It is not correct to say that if a
number of vacancies are notified for
appointment and adequate number of
candidates are found fit, the successful
candidates acquire an indefeasible right to
be appointed which cannot be legitimately
denied. Ordinarily the notification merely
amounts to an invitation to qualified
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
candidates to apply for recruitment and on
their selection they do not acquire any
right to the post. Unless the relevant
recruitment rules so indicates, the State is
under no legal duty to fill up all or any of
the vacancies. However, it does not mean
that the State has the licence of acting in
an arbitrary manner. The decision not to
fill up the vacancies has to be taken
bonafide for appropriate reasons. And it
the vacancies or any of them are filled up,
the State is bound to respect the
comparative merit of the candidates, as
reflected at the recruitment test, and no
discrimination can be permitted. This
correct position has been consistently
followed by this Court, and we do not
find any discordant note in the decisions
in State of Haryana v. Subhash
Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v.
State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumar
v. State of Punjab."

In All India SC & ST Employees'
Association and another v. A. Arthur
Jeen and others, [2001]6 SCC 380 the
Supreme Court held-

"Merely because the names of the
candidates were included in the panel
indicating their provisional selection, they
did not acquire any indefeasible right for
appointment even against the existing
vacancies and the State is under no legal
duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies."

Similar view was followed by the
Supreme Court in Ludhiana Central
Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Amrik Singh
and
others,
2003[10]
SCC136,
S.Renuka and others v. State of A P
and another, 2002 SCC [5] 195, Sabita
Prasad and others v. State of Bihar and
others, 1993 [1] SLR-44, State of
Andhra
Pradesh
and
others
v.
D.Dastagiri and others, 2003[3] ESC
291.

6. The judgment cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is totally
distinguishable. That was a case where
the candidates name was found in the
select list, but in the present case, the
petitioner's name was only found in the
waiting list which came to an end upon
the filling up of the entire vacancies that
were advertised. As stated earlier, once
the vacancies are filled up, the waiting list
comes to an end and cannot be utilized
any further.

7. In view of the aforesaid, I do not
find any merit in the writ petition. It is
accordingly dismissed. However, there
shall be no order as to cost.
Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: 16.05.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39418 of 2005

Ravindra Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.B. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Service
Law-cancellation
of
appointment-false declaration given at
the time of submitting application form
regarding involvement in any criminal
case-subsequent
acquittal
will
not