SAMEENA YASMEENversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                          WRIT - C No. - 21502 of 2021

Sameena Yasmeen
                                                                   .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                                 .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)          : Om     Narayan             Mishra,        Shoar
                                     Mohammad Khan
Counsel for Respondent(s)          : Anubhav Singh,              C.S.C.,      Sudhir
                                     Mehrotra

Court No. - 5
                      HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
                      HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following
prayer:-

     "i. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing
     the respondent authorities to release and make payment of enhanced
     salary and allowance of 11 months in terms of the order dated 26.10.2016
     passed by the respondent no. 2, U.P. Legal Services Authority, Lucknow.
     ii. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing
     the competent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner for
     appointment of Member Permanent Lok Adalat, Rampur."

3. Today when the matter is taken, learned counsel stated that he does
want to press the prayer No.1 and prays to dismiss the aforesaid prayer as
not pressed.

4. In this view of the matter, insofar as prayer No.1 is concerned, the writ
petition is dismissed.

5. Insofar as the prayer No.2 is concerned, it is argued by learned counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner had also worked as member of
Permanent Lok Adalat, Rampur for the period of five year, i.e., from
                                                      WRIC No. 21502 of 2021
                               2


2016 to May, 2021 and after completing aforesaid term, he again
submitted fresh application for appointment as a member of Permanent
Lok Adalat, Rampur on 20.08.2021 pursuant to the advertisement dated
04.08.2021. It is argued that once the petitioner has worked for the post
of member of Permanent Lok Adalat, Rampur for five years, her
experience is liable to be counted for consideration of her application for
appointment as member of Permanent Lok Adalat, Rampur.

6. On the other hand, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondents
that once the period of petitioner has come to end, the petitioner may
apply for fresh appointment on the post in question, the respondent will
consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post in
question as per procedure prescribed in law.

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

8. From perusal of the record, it is clear that pursuant to advertisement
published in the year 2021, the petitioner has applied for the post of
member of Permanent Lok Adalat, Rampur. Nothing has been argued nor
any documents have been placed before the Court regarding the outcome
of the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment for the post
of member of Permanent Lok Adalat, Rampur pursuant to the
advertisement issued in the year 2021. Even otherwise the notification
was issued only to invite application from qualified candidates for their
recruitment and selection on the post in question and the candidate does
not acquire any right to the post unless the relevant recruitment rules so
indicate.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Das Vs. Union
of India reported in AIR 1991 SC 1612 has held that the notification
merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for
recruitment and on the selection, the candidate does not acquire any right
to the post unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate. The relevant
portion of the order reads as follows:-

     "7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are
     notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates
     are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an inde-
                                                                                            WRIC No. 21502 of 2021
                                                                     3


                                            feasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately
                                            denied. Ordinarily the notifica-tion merely amounts to an
                                            invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and
                                            on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post.
                                            Unless the relevant recruit-ment rules so indicate, the State is
                                            under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies."

                                  10. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that mere submitting
                                  application for the post of member of Permanent Lok Adalat, does not
                                  provide any legal right to the petitioner for her appointment and selection
                                  on the post in question, the petition lacks merits and the same is liable to
                                  be dismissed and the writ petition is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is
                                  free apply for the post of member as Permanent Lok Adalat as and when
                                  fresh advertisement will be published.



                                                                           (Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.)
                                  September 11, 2026
                                  saqlain




Digitally signed by :-
SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad