'Advertisement of vacancy in newspaper having low circulation unfair to candidates': Allahabad High Court

Update: 2022-06-10 09:44 GMT

A division bench of Allahabad High Court recently observed that advertising job vacancy in a newspaper that hardly has any circulation in the area is unfair to the candidates. Court said, "In terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, an advertisement has to be issued for inviting the applications giving fair opportunity to all the candidates."

The bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice JJ Munir upheld the order passed by the single-judge bench which had dismissed a writ petition by one Ravi Pratap Mishra, a clerk in an Inter College. 

Mishra had moved the writ petition challenging the decision of the District Inspector Of School refusing to grant financial sanction to Mishra's appointment as Inter College clerk on the ground that the advertisement for clerical recruitment had been published in a low circulation newspaper.

Mishra had contended that the school management committee had published the advertisement for the clerical recruitment in local newspaper, after which he was duly appointed by the selection committee, which was as per the rules. 

The single judge bench rejected Mishra's plea with the observation that prior to his appointment, the vacancy was not properly advertised. It had noted that the advertisement was made in a newspaper, named ‘Hindustan Kaa Swaroop’, which hardly had any circulation in the area.

In appeal against the order of the single judge bench, Mishra approached the division bench, which agreed with the decision of the single judge noting, "As the proper procedure for filling up the vacancy was not followed, the learned Single Judge did not find merit in the writ petition as fair opportunity was not afforded to all the prospective candidates to apply for the post."

Therefore, Court held that it did not find any error in the order passed by the Single Judge and dismissed Mishra's appeal. 

Case Title: Ravi Pratap Mishra v. State of U.P. and others

Similar News