Allahabad High Court
PRATAP SINGH TIWARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner may be called for interview only if a vacancy still exists and he submits a representation, otherwise the relief sought cannot be granted.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition in March 2021 seeking a direction to be allowed to attend an interview scheduled for 23 March 2021 for the post of Principal in a college. No interim relief was granted and the interview concluded; by 2025 the recruitment process was completed and the waiting list exhausted. The Court noted that even if the petitioner was wrongly denied participation, the relief sought could not be granted because the vacancy had been filled and any new vacancy would require fresh recruitment. However, the Court observed that the petition had been pending for four years, causing prejudice to the petitioner, and therefore directed that if any vacancy still exists, the petitioner may be called for interview upon filing a representation. The petition was consequently disposed with the observation that the petitioner must submit a representation for any further consideration.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to be allowed to participate in the interview despite the lapse of time and completion of the recruitment process.
- Whether the Court can grant relief directing the respondents to conduct a fresh recruitment or to consider the petitioner for any vacancy arising thereafter.
- Whether the petitioner’s delay and the four‑year pendency of the petition prejudice his claim and warrant any equitable relief.
Subjects
- recruitment
- interview
- writ petition
- administrative law
- delay
- prejudice
- representation
- vacancy
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 5166 of 2021
Pratap Singh Tiwari
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Atipriya Gautam, Ishir Sripat, Kunwar
Akhilendra Singh, Rakesh Pathak, Ram
Krishna, Samarath Singh, Shivam
Agarwal, Vinod Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Nath Singh, C.S.C.
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Shivam Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.N.
Singh, learned counsel for respondents.
2. This Court has passed following order on 17.12.2025 :-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition was filed in the month of March, 2021 with the
prayer that the petitioner be permitted to participate in the interview
which was scheduled on 23.03.2021 for the post of Principal in Graduate
College and Post Graduate College on the basis of the advertisement
issued by the Commissioner.
3. Admittedly, no interim order was granted and the petitioner therefore
never participated in the interview and now in the year 2025 when much
water has flown such as not only said recruitment process has already
been concluded. Even waiting list is also exhausted, therefore there is a
very little scope for consideration of prayer. Even if any vacancy has
arisen due to resignation of a selected candidate would be subject to fresh
recruitment.
4. The Court is of view that in above circumstances even if the
submission of petitioner is accepted that he was wrongly stopped from
participation in interview, relief sought may not be granted. Court also
WRIA No. 5166 of 2021
2
takes note of a judgement passed by coordinate bench in Dr. Rituraj Vs.
State of U.P. and 2 others (Writ-A No. 5075 of 2021) alongwith
connected writ petitions, decided on 15.11.2022, which appears to be
against the petitioners.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks two weeks' time
to lay hand on some judgements, which could favour petitioner's case in
given circumstances.
6. Let this matter come up in the 3rd week of January, 2026. "
3. Even in above circumstances, a factor which goes in favour of
petitioner that he has immediately approached this Court, however,
present writ petition kept pending for 4 years, therefore, he is prejudiced,
hence, this Court is of the view that if a fresh recruitment process is still
not initiated and vacancies are still available (due to resignation or
otherwise), petitioner may be called for interview, however, for that,
petitioner has to submit a representation so that respondents may take a
decision to call the petitioner for interview, if no other legal impediment
exists.
4. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
March 18, 2026
N. Sinha
Digitally signed by :-
NIRMAL SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…