OM PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/writ petitioner claims to be selected in the single post which was reserved for dependant of Freedom Fighters in the group of employees to be taken in as Village Davelopment Officers.

(2.) That there were advertisements is not denied: the due courses of selection is also admitted to have been undertaken.

(3.) In the list of selected candidates published against the reserved post mentioned above, the name of Ajay Kumar Singh appeared. The admitted fact is that later it transpired that he was not in fact a dependant of a Freedom Fighter and his name was included because of forged documents filed by him. The writ petitioner was second in the list of candidates in the category of Freedom Fighter as dependent. He made a representation that he should be given the appointment since, after the dropping out of Ajay Kumar Singh the reserved single post could not be left vacant and he was in all fairness and justice the person to appointed ' to that post. There were recommendations also made in his favour but the appointment actually never came. The writ petitioner thus approached the Court and the Hon'ble Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. His Lordship said "the law is well settled that even a select candidate has no legal right of appointment until a letter of appointment is offered to him." With respect, we disagree the offer of a letter of appointment is the appointment. The right of appointment comes before that. This assumes, as is almost always the case, that the candidate remains willing through to take up the job.