Vijay Pratap Yadav vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 23 February, 2022

Vijay Pratap Yadav vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 23 February, 2022

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

Vijay Pratap Yadav vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 23 February, 2022

Author: Uday Umesh Lalit


                                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                             INHERENT JURISDICTION

                                   REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL)D.NO.1027 OF 2022


                               SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO.11323 OF 2021

                          VIJAY PRATAP YADAV AND ORS.                           …Petitioners


                          STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.                       …Respondents

                                                        O R D E R

Delay condoned.

After disposal of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No. 11323 of 2021 by

Order dated 26.07.2021, Miscellaneous Application No. 1391 of 2021 was

preferred, which was rejected by Order dated 9.9.2021. Thereafter, Review

Signature Not Verified Petition (Civil)No. 32 of 2022 was preferred by the Special Leave Petitioners
Digitally signed by Dr.
Mukesh Nasa
Date: 2022.02.23

which was rejected by Order dated 11.1.2022 with following observations:-
19:49:57 IST


“Application for permission to file review petition is granted.

Delay condoned.

This review petition arises out of the order dated 26.07.2021
passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11323
of 2021 which in turn was directed against the order dated
03.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench.

In terms of the decision of this Court in State of U.P and others
v. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others
, the State Government was
granted liberty to fill up the remaining vacancies in accordance
with law and after issuance of fresh advertisement. Accordingly
fresh selection process was initiated.

However, grievance was made by the petitioners that the
selection undertaken in pursuance of the earlier Notification
dated 07.12.2012 ought to have been taken to logical
conclusion. A subsidiary issue was also raised regarding refund
of prescribed fees deposited by the petitioners.

Finding no merit in the substantive submissions raised in
support of the petition, the petition was dismissed on

We have gone through the review petition which now raises a
submission inter alia that 95 candidates who had not fulfilled the
criteria of 60% for reserved category and 70% of unreserved
category in terms of interim orders issued by this Court, were
wrongly selected.

We have gone through the grounds raised in the review petition
and find no reason to justify interference in this review petition.

This review petition is, therefore, dismissed.”

The present Review Petition is now preferred by those who were not parties

to the litigation with an application seeking permission to file Review Petition.


The controversy having been considered on three occasions, we see no reason

to grant the permission as prayed for. Consequently, the instant Review Petition is



[Uday Umesh Lalit]


[Ajay Rastogi]
New Delhi;

23rd February, 2022.