SUSHIL KUAMR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner seeks a mandate to treat him to have been appointed in the month of January 2005 and thus not to make any deduction from his salary. It is claimed that in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Service Selection Board, the petitioner was interviewed on 18.10.2004 for the post of Lecturer in History. Though the panel was sent by the Board in December 2004, a direction for his appointment was only issued in 2005 and since it was after January 2005, the deducations are being made under the General Provident Fund (U.P.) (Amendment) Rules, 2005. It is apparent from a perusal of the reply under the Right to Information Act that the authorities were vigilant in taking action but they cannot be blamed for the procedural delays. Apart from that, the petitioner has not even annexed a copy of his appointment letter nor has impleaded the Selection Board as a party. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case tor interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.