Skip to content


Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Source Linkhttps://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/26389/26389_2021_2_1003_32399_Judgement_11-Jan-2022.pdf
Case NumberR.P.(C) No.-000032-000032 - 2022
Judge
AppellantSunil Kumar Yadav
RespondentThe State Of Uttar Pradesh
Advocates:SATISH PANDEY __
Excerpt:
.....the review petition which now raises a submission inter alia that 95 candidates who had not fulfilled the criteria of 60% for reserved category and 70% of unreserved category in terms of interim orders issued by this court, were wrongly selected. we have gone through the grounds raised in the review petition and find no reason to justify interference in this review petition. this review petition is, therefore, dismissed. …………………………j.[uday umesh lalit]. …………………………j.[ajay rastogi]. new delhi; january 11, 2022.
Judgment:

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No.OF2022(D.No.26389 of 2021) IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.11323 of 2021 SUNIL KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS …Petitioners versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS …Respondents ORDER

Application for permission to file review petition is granted. Delay condoned. This review petition arises out of the order dated 26.07.2021 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11323 of 2021 which in turn was directed against the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. In terms of the decision of this Court in State of U.P and others v. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others, the State Government was granted liberty to fill up the remaining vacancies in accordance with law and after issuance of fresh advertisement. Accordingly fresh selection process was initiated. However, grievance was made by the petitioners that the selection undertaken in pursuance of the earlier Notification dated 07.12.2012 ought to have been taken 2 to logical conclusion. A subsidiary issue was also raised regarding refund of prescribed fees deposited by the petitioners. Finding no merit in the substantive submissions raised in support of the petition, the petition was dismissed on 26.07.2021. We have gone through the review petition which now raises a submission inter alia that 95 candidates who had not fulfilled the criteria of 60% for reserved category and 70% of unreserved category in terms of interim orders issued by this Court, were wrongly selected. We have gone through the grounds raised in the review petition and find no reason to justify interference in this review petition. This review petition is, therefore, dismissed. …………………………J.

[Uday Umesh Lalit]. …………………………J.

[Ajay Rastogi]. New Delhi; January 11, 2022.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //