DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, V. K. Jaiswal, Advocate and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THIS special appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 12th November, 2008, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner-appellant challenging the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 12th November, 2008 contended that although the post of Lecturer (Mathematics) had fallen vacant on 30th June, 2002 but no steps were taken for filling up the post. By virtue of proviso to Rule-10 of U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the '1998, Rules'), it is the discretion of the Committee of Management to not fill up the post in any particular year because of the use of the word 'may' in proviso to Rule-10 of the Rules, 1998. He submits that under Rule-14 of the Rules, 1998 the concept of year of recruitment is not the same as defined in the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. He further submits that the word "year of recruitment" shall take colour from the context of the Rule and in the facts of the present case the year of recruitment will be the year when the management decides to fill up the vacancy.