Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1802 (ALL)

M. D. , U. P. S. R. T. C. v. Nafees Mohammad

2017-08-03

ARUN TANDON, RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2017
JUDGMENT : ARUN TANDON, RITU RAJ AWASTHI, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Cause shown for the delay in filing of the appeal is to the satisfaction of the Court. Delay is condoned. Delay condonation application is allowed. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned Single Judge under the judgment and order dated 13.07.2012, even after taking note of the fact that a ban had been imposed by the State Government on appointment, has proceeded to direct that once the selection process has been initiated and the select list has been prepared the State cannot put a blanket ban on appointments. Therefore, the Court proceeded to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation to issue appointment letters to the petitioner and to allow them to join and work as well as to pay their emoluments. 3. With regard to petitioner no. 1 it has been further observed that since he is in the waiting list, he may be offered appointment if any selected candidate does not join. 4. The competence of the State to impose ban on appointments had not been questioned. Mere selection confers no right/mere inclusion of the name in the select list does not confer any right upon the selected candidate. If the State Government has taken a decision to ban the appointments, no mandamus can be issued. Reference be had to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Km. Sandhya Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2013 (7) ADJ page 1, wherein it has been explained that mere selection will not confer any right to claim appointment and if in the meantime a Government Order has been issued imposing the ban, the selected candidate cannot claim any appointment. 5. Therefore, in the facts of the case the learned Single Judge was not justified in ignoring the ban and in issuing the mandamus contrary to the Government Order so issued, specifically when competence of the State to impose the ban was not under challenge. The order of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed.