Allahabad High Court
Balinder Yadav And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 11 March, 2025
Author: Jayant Banerji
Bench: Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35781 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 382 of 2025 Petitioner :- Balinder Yadav And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Danish,Ram Bhusan Diwakar,Vipin Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Siddharth Singhal Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned brief holder of Shri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.
2. This petition has been filed seeking the following relief:
"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to send Supplementary Select List against the post vacant, either due to non-availability of suitable candidate against the posts allocated or due to non-joining of selected candidate, against 3133 posts of Village Development Officer advertised through Advertisement No.3/2016 from the merit list including the name of the petitioners.
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 and 2 to take consequential steps for issuance of appointment letter in favour of the petitioners without any further delay after receipt of Supplementary Select List from respondent no. 3."
3. When the matter was listed on 10.2.2025, this Court had passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel appearing for respective parties.
Shri Siddharth Singhal, learned Advocate appearing for respondents states that the controversy is no more res integra as bunch of Special Appeals in respect of the same issue has already been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 22.09.2021. It is also submitted that review petition filed against the judgment and order dated 22.09.2021 has also been dismissed.
The judgment and order dated 22.09.2021 has been passed on to this Court and is taken on record.
Learned counsel appearing for petitioners prays for a week's time to peruse the judgment and assist the Court.
Accordingly the matter is adjourned.
Put up as fresh again on 24.02.2025 before appropriate Bench."
4. Today, learned counsel for the respondent has stated that since the matter is squarely covered by a decision of this Court dated 22.9.2021 passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 421 of 2021 (Arvind Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others), he does not proposes to file a counter affidavit and the case may be disposed of at this stage itself.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners have performed well in the recruitment process in Village Development Officer (General Selection) 2016. He has referred to a communication from the Deputy Commissioner of Village Development, Uttar Pradesh sent to the Deputy Commissioner/Public Information Officer, Gram Vikas, Uttar Pradesh, which is dated 4.2.2019 to contend that there are vacant posts available and therefore, it is necessary that a supplementary wait list be directed to be made by this Court so that the existing vacancies can be filled up. No other argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. A perusal of the aforesaid communication dated 4.2.2019 reflects that it does not specifies as to which advertisement was being referred to while forwarding the information sought. In any view of the matter, a perusal of the clause 12 of the aforesaid advertisement of 2016 reflects that the selection process was required to be carried out under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment to Group "C" Post (Mode and Procedure) Rules, 2015.
7. A Division Bench of this Court, in an intra court appeal had occasion to examine a judgment of the learned Judge on an identical issue. In that case too, the posts in question were advertised in the year 2016 which were to be filled up as per the Rules of 2015, which Rules do not provide for making of a wait list. Relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. Suresh Prasad and others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 681, the Court dismissed the aforesaid appeal of Arvind Yadav.
8. It is stated by learned counsel for the respondents that even a review application against the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench was rejected by means of an order dated 16.2.2022 and the order of the Division Bench has become final.
9. In such view of the matter, the relief prayed for in this petition cannot be granted and the petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.3.2025 A. V. Singh (Jayant Banerji, J.)