ALLAHABAD HIGHCOURT, VACANCY, SHIKSHAK BHARTI : माननीय इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने 72825 के भर्ती के तहत रिक्त पड़ी सीटों पर किसी भी तरह से राहत देने से किया इंकार, माननीय उच्च न्यायालय ने 21/09/2017 के ऑर्डर को भी किया मेंशन जिसमें टेट 2011 की वैलिडिटी बढ़ाने पर लगाई थी रोक, क्लिक कर आर्डर देखें ।

ALLAHABAD HIGHCOURT, VACANCY, SHIKSHAK BHARTI : माननीय इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने 72825 के भर्ती के तहत रिक्त पड़ी सीटों पर किसी भी तरह से राहत देने से किया इंकार, माननीय उच्च न्यायालय ने 21/09/2017 के ऑर्डर को भी किया मेंशन जिसमें टेट 2011 की वैलिडिटी बढ़ाने पर लगाई थी रोक, क्लिक कर आर्डर देखें ।

Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 46246 of 2017
Petitioner :- Kushal Singh And 37 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
By the instant writ petition, petitioners seek the following
reliefs:
a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner No. 11 to 18 against the
vacant posts of Dependent of Freedom Fighter under female category and
against vacant posts of Ex-Servicemen quota of female category;
b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner No. 1 to 10 and
petitioner No.19 to 38 against the vacant posts of Dependent of Freedom
Fighter under male category and against vacant posts of Ex-Servicemen
quota of male category.
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4375 of 2014
(State of U.P. and others etc. etc. vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak
and others etc. etc.) passed the following order :
"We have been informed that 66,655 teachers have already been appointed
in pursuance of the interim orders of this Court. Having due regard to the
entirety of circumstances, we are not inclined to disturb the same. We
make it clear that the State is at liberty to fill up the remaining vacancies in
accordance with law after issuing a fresh advertisement."
Learned standing counsel would submit that no fresh
advertisement pursuant to the order of Supreme Court has
yet been issued. Learned standing counsel and learned
counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would inform
that claim of similarly situated petitioners have already
been dismissed by this Court by order dated 21.09.2017
passed in Writ - A No. 45035 of 2017 (Sanjay Kumar and
others vs. State of U.P. and others). Learned counsel for the
petitioner would not dispute the contention. The order is
extracted :
"3. Despite repeated query, learned counsel for petitioners, could not show
that he has a legal right to force employer to fill the existing vacancies
which is inherent right of employer. (See, State of Haryana Vs Subash
Chander Marwaha, AIR 1973 SC 2216, Jitendra Kumar and others Vs.
State of Punjab and others (1985) 1 SCC 122 and Shankarsan Dash Vs.
Union of India 1991 (3) SCC 47. Right for consideration for appointment
arise only when employer decides to fill in the vacancies and advertise the
same. Therefore, relief sought in the writ petition cannot be granted.
4. Dismissed."
Petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.10.2017
Mukesh Kr.

✍ माननीय हाई कोर्ट इलाहाबाद ने 72825 के भर्ती के तहत रिक्त पड़ी सीटों पर किसी भी तरह से राहत देने से इंकार कर दिया है और अपने 05-10-2017 के ऑर्डर में माननीय हाई कोर्ट के 21-09-2017 के उस ऑर्डर को भी मेंशन किया है जिसमें टेट की वैलिडिटी बढ़ाने पर रोक लगाई थी।इस तरह से अब प्राथमिक विद्यालयों में बीटीसी तथा टेट अभ्यर्थियों के द्वारा ही रिक्त पदों पर भर्तियां होंगी और उच्च योग्यता वालों के लिए योग्यता के अनुरूप पद पर चयन के लिए विकल्प खोल दिया गया है।

Court No. - 34

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 45035 of 2017

Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar And 40 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition is thoroughly misconceived. Petitioner has sought

mandamus directing respondents to identify existing vacancies of Trainee

Teacher/Assistant Teacher in Junior Basic Schools and fill the vacancy.

3. Despite repeated query, learned counsel for petitioners, could not show

that he has a legal right to force employer to fill the existing vacancies

which is inherent right of employer. (See, State of Haryana Vs Subash

Chander Marwaha, AIR 1973 SC 2216, Jitendra Kumar and others

Vs. State of Punjab and others (1985) 1 SCC 122 and Shankarsan

Dash Vs. Union of India 1991 (3) SCC 47. Right for consideration for

appointment arise only when employer decides to fill in the vacancies and

advertise the same. Therefore, relief sought in the writ petition cannot be

granted.

4. Dismissed.

Order Date :- 21.9.2017

Pravin