HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 13917 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Mishra, learned panel counsel for the respondent. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner has questioned the order dated 09.03.17 whereby the Committee constituted for the purposes of holding selection and appointments on Class IV post in the High Court rejected the representation of the candidates for the preparation of waiting list. This order was passed on 09.03.2017 in respect of the selection held pursuant to the advertisement issued on 18.10.2015. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to urge that since earlier a writ petition was filed for a writ of mandamus to command the selection body to consider the claim of petitioner for consideration of his candidature in OBC category against vacant positions being Writ A No.9477 of 2017 which came to be finally Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Seemant Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Mishra, C.S.C. Ankit Verma And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) dismissed with liberty to challenge the decision of the committee dated 09.03.2017, now here was an occasion for him to maintain this petition. 4. Per contra, Sri Ashish Mishra, learned panel counsel for the respondent has raised two fold preliminary objections as to the maintainability of this petition: firstly, the matter relates to year 2017 selection pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2016 for Class IV category posts in the High Court and hence select list has already stood exhausted and secondly, since subsequently advertisement also got issued in the year 2018 and the left over vacancies stood carried forward, no such relief now can be granted to the candidates who have participated in the selection pursuant to the advertisement of 2016. Shri Mishra has also questioned petition for the delay and latches on the ground that the order dated 09.03.2014 was already quoted in the counter affidavit filed in the year 2017 in the previous petition itself and hence, petitioner had the knowledge and had the occasion to seek amendment in then pending writ petition or to file fresh writ petition at that very time. He states that more than eight years have been elapsed since the order was passed by the Committee on 09.03.2017 and hence the petitioner being not vigilant to his rights, now could not maintain this petition after eight years only for the liberty granted. 5. Yet another argument has been advanced by Sri Ashish WRIA No. 13917 of 2025 2 Mishra, learned panel counsel for the respondent that since there was no provision for waiting list either under the Rules or under the advertisement, it was out of question to go for preparation of such waiting list. Therefore, order on merits also cannot be questioned. 6. Meeting the submission so advanced above, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Rashmi Malhotra v. State of U.P. and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.73943 of 2010) decided on 13.02.2012 in which it was directed that if the vacancies were available pursuant to the advertisement and there was no rule for preparation of waiting list, next candidate in merit could have been called. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, I find it to be an admitted position of fact that the order impugned was very much quoted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the pending writ petition in the year 2017 itself and therefore, petitioner can not be permitted to take a plea that he had no knowledge earlier. Hence petitioner is liable to be held guilty for delay and latches in approaching the Court. However, on merits also I find that subsequent advertisement having been issued in the year 2018 regarding Class IV posts in the High Court and earlier left over vacancies having got carried forward in the subsequent selection, a candidate after eight years can WRIA No. 13917 of 2025 3 not ask for accommodation against posts for which advertisement issued in the year 2017. In so far as the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court is concerned, it is distinguishable on the facts for the reason that in the said case there was no subsequent advertisement issued. 8. This petition lacks merit as well, and is accordingly dismissed and is consigned to records. September 17, 2025 Deepika WRIA No. 13917 of 2025 4 (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad