Allahabad High Court
RAJESH PAL AND 11 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court held that the earlier selection and pending writ petitions do not bar the issuance of a fresh advertisement, and dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioners challenged Advertisement No.17‑Pariksha/2026 for the post of Pashudhan Prasar Adhikari Mukhya Pariksha dated 10 August 2026, issued by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission. They argued that because several writ petitions concerning the 2014 selection were still pending and interim orders were in place, a fresh advertisement should not have been issued. The Court held that the earlier selection process and the pending writs bore no relevance to the current advertisement. Consequently, the petition was found to lack merit. The writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether pending writ petitions and interim orders relating to a 2014 selection preclude the issuance of a fresh advertisement for recruitment in 2026.
Subjects
- writ petition
- recruitment advertisement
- Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission
- administrative law
- pending litigation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14866 of 2026
Rajesh Pal And 11 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ganesh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Siddharth Singhal
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Vakalatnama filed today by Saurabh Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of
respondent no.4 is taken on record.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the Advertisement No.17-
Pariksha/2026 for the post of Pashudhan Prasar Adhikari Mukhya Pariksha (
प्रा0अ0प0)/17 dated 10.8.2026, issued by the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh
Subordinate Services Selection Commission, Lucknow.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that against the earlier
selection held in the year 2014, several writ petitions are pending and interim
order have been passed and till then, the aforesaid writ petitions are not
decided, therefore, no fresh advertisement should have been made.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly misconceived.
Earlier selection is nothing to do with the present advertisement.
5. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
September 23, 2026
Rishabh
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RISHABH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…