DONESH RAJPUT & ORS. versus PRADEEP KUMAR SHUKLA & ORS.

DONESH RAJPUT & ORS. versus PRADEEP KUMAR SHUKLA & ORS.

Only those candidates for the post of Pharmacist in Uttar Pradesh who responded to the advertisement dated 12.11.2007 and submitted appropriate applications, and fulfilled eligibility criteria under the relevant recruitment rules, are entitled to benefit of Supreme Court's directions in Santosh Kumar Mishra; claims by others who did not apply are not maintainable.

Parties
Applicant: Donesh Rajput & Ors.; Respondent: Pradeep Kumar Shukla & Ors.; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh; Advocate: V. Giri; Advocate: Dr. Rajeev Dhavan; Advocate: Mukesh K. Giri; Advocate: Gunnam Venkateswara Rao; Advocate: Venkata Raghuvamsy; Advocate: Siddharth Krishna Dwivedi; Advocate: Saurabh Upadhyay; Advocate: Dr. S.K. Verma; Advocate: Aldanish Rein; Advocate: Shamshranish Rein; Advocate: Maheravish Rein; Advocate: Abhisth Kumar; Advocate: Vivek Vishnoi; Advocate: Pawan Kumar Shukla; Advocate: Yash Pal Dhingra; Advocate: Pankaj Kumar Singh; Advocate: K.L. Janjani; Advocate: Ashutosh Lal; Advocate: Dr. Kailash Chand; Advocate: Yatish Mohan; Advocate: K. N. Tripathy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Contempt Petition (civil) With Interlocutory Applications (ias) in SLP (c) / Disposition of Ias and Contempt Petitions; Orders Issued
Outcome
Interlocutory applications and contempt petitions disposed; clarification issued; previous orders modified to clarify eligible claimants.
Legal Topics
Recruitment and Appointment, Contempt of Court Orders, Interpretation of Recruitment Rules
Service Law Administrative Law Recruitment and Appointment Contempt of Court Orders Interpretation of Recruitment Rules

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donesh Rajput & Ors.

Applicant

Pradeep Kumar Shukla & Ors.

Respondent

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

V. Giri

Advocate

Dr. Rajeev Dhavan

Advocate

Mukesh K. Giri

Advocate

Gunnam Venkateswara Rao

Advocate

Venkata Raghuvamsy

Advocate

Siddharth Krishna Dwivedi

Advocate

Saurabh Upadhyay

Advocate

Dr. S.K. Verma

Advocate

Aldanish Rein

Advocate

Shamshranish Rein

Advocate

Maheravish Rein

Advocate

Abhisth Kumar

Advocate

Vivek Vishnoi

Advocate

Pawan Kumar Shukla

Advocate

Yash Pal Dhingra

Advocate

Pankaj Kumar Singh

Advocate

K.L. Janjani

Advocate

Ashutosh Lal

Advocate

Dr. Kailash Chand

Advocate

Yatish Mohan

Advocate

K. N. Tripathy

Advocate

Procedural Posture

Contempt Petition (civil) With Interlocutory Applications (ias) in SLP (c) / Disposition of Ias and Contempt Petitions; Orders Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who qualifies as 'similarly placed persons' entitled to benefit under Supreme Court's Santosh Kumar Mishra judgment for appointment to the post of Pharmacist?
  2. 2 What is the correct ascertainment of vacancies for Pharmacist posts as per previous orders and Rules?
  3. 3 Does non-compliance with Court orders amount to contempt in the factual scenario presented?

Ratio Decidendi

Only those candidates for the post of Pharmacist in Uttar Pradesh who responded to the advertisement dated 12.11.2007 and submitted appropriate applications, and fulfilled eligibility criteria under the relevant recruitment rules, are entitled to benefit of Supreme Court's directions in Santosh Kumar Mishra; claims by others who did not apply are not maintainable.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory applications and contempt petitions disposed; clarification issued; previous orders modified to clarify eligible claimants.

Orders

  • Principal Secretary, Law, Uttar Pradesh directed to recall order dated 27.9.2013 regarding vacancy ascertainment and verify vacancies as per correct procedure.
  • State of Uttar Pradesh directed to conclude process of ascertainment of vacancies and fill up remaining posts of Pharmacist as per Santosh Kumar Mishra judgment and present order clarification.