Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136285 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26900 of 2013 Petitioner :- Ashutosh Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Tripathi,Shivam Shukla,Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Upadhyay Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. Initially, the present writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 30.04.2013 passed by the 4th respondent - Director, Bundelkhand Institute of Engineering and Technology, Jhansi and also assailed the appointment of the 5th respondent in the post of lab assistant. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner has amended the prayer questioning the order dated 15.07.2011 and consequential orders dated 16.08.2011 and 01.12.2011. 4. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed second prayer with regard to the appointment of the 5th respondent. He has only concentrated his argument to the extent that initially, three posts of the lab assistants were advertised by the 4th respondent. Accordingly, based on the selection process, the petitioner was appointed on 15.07.2011. The very advertisement of the three posts are substantive in nature but after selection, the respondents issued appointment letter in leave vacancy to the petitioner which is quite contrary to records. As there are three posts in the Institution, the respondents have to fill up the posts alternately; first post by direct recruitment and second post by promotion. According to the bye-laws for Bundelkhand Institute of Engineering & Technology, Jhansi, third post has to be filled up by direct recruitment. If the authorities had followed the said bye-laws, the petitioner would entitle to the 3rd vacancy. But on the contrary, the respondents have filled up one vacancy by direct recruitment and rest two vacancies by way of promotion. 5. In view of the illegality, the petitioner was deprived of employment and hence he has requested to set aside the portion of the appointment letter treating substantive vacancy and the consequential termination order passed by the respondents on 30.04.2013. 6. In reply to the said contention, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 has relied on the averments made in the counter affidavit wherein they have fairly mentioned that there are three substantive vacancies of lab assistants in the Institution and the said three posts were filled up; one Sujeet Narain (SC Category) by way of direct recruitment and rest by way of promotion. In the said circumstances, as there are no vacancies available in the Institution, the petitioner cannot be accommodated. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, as the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that two posts have been filled up by way of promotion that can be said as irregularity done by the respondents. Further, the order of the appointment made in the year 2011 cannot be set aside. In fact, the appointment of the petitioner was considered in leave vacancy and after completion of the same, the respondents terminated the petitioner's services. In the said circumstances, no clear cut vacancy exists in the respondents - Institution. There cannot be any direction issued for consideration of the petitioner's claim. 8. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 rkg (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad