ANOOP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is because of the criminal case that inspite of his being selected, he has not been offered the appointment though it has been categorically admitted that the respondents have postponed/cancelled the process of selection, which might resulted into appointment of the petitioner. It has nowhere stated that it is postponement/cancellation of the appointment to the effect that there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner. Petitioner now claims that since he has been acquitted of the charges, therefore he should have given appointment, so he is seeking a direction from this Court in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner. Petitioner has miserably failed to demonstrate of his having any such legal right much less any statutory right, coupled with the corresponding duty on the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the basis of the case set up by the petitioner. In these circumstances, no direction can be issued to the respondents. This writ petition is, therefore devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.