University Appointment Legal Dispute

Summary

The user is involved in a legal dispute with a university regarding appointment directives issued by the High Court of Allahabad. The university claims a legal impediment due to pending cadre recruitment rules, which the user argues is baseless. The user highlights discrepancies in the universitys vacancy chart, noting that an RTI reply confirms more vacant posts than reported. The user requests the court to mandate the disclosure of claimants names for transparency and fairness. Additionally, the user points out the inconsistency in implementing court judgments, as similar cases have not faced legal impediments. The user seeks to strengthen their rejoinder affidavit to address these issues effectively.

Full Conversation

Claiming cadre recruitment rules is yet to pass from the ministry
It sounds like the university is using the pending cadre recruitment rules as a reason for not implementing the court's directive. In general, if a court has directed an appointment, such directives usually hold unless legally stayed or altered by a higher court. You might want to consult with your legal counsel on:
- Validity of the university's claim regarding recruitment rules.
- Possible legal remedies if the court's order is not being followed.
- Whether there has been any stay on the court order.
If you need more specific guidance or a referral to a local lawyer, let me know!
Make a paragraph to add in my rejoinder affidavit
In response to the counter affidavit filed by the university counsel, I wish to address the claim of a legal impediment due to pending cadre recruitment rules. It is important to note that the High Court of Allahabad has previously directed the appointment of petitioners in June and December, which should be honored unless a higher court legally alters or stays this order. The university's assertion that cadre recruitment rules are pending approval from the ministry does not constitute a valid basis to disregard the court's directive. I urge the court to consider the precedence set by the prior order and ensure compliance unless a legitimate legal stay is demonstrated.
And also make another point for not showing the claimants data for appointment on stenographer posts and they prepared a chart which shows only * vacant post from * to december * but there are total * posts total vacant and the main point is that my father post is still vacant i.e stenographer which is mentioned in the rti reply by the university and also says your appointment can not be made due no vacancy under *% quota
Case Rating: *
Based on your situation, you may want to address the discrepancy in the vacancy chart in your rejoinder affidavit. Here's a suggestion:
"In addition to the issues raised regarding the legal impediments claimed by the university, I wish to highlight discrepancies in the vacancy chart provided by the university. While the chart shows only two vacant posts from * to December *, an RTI reply confirms that there are actually * vacant posts. This includes my father's stenographer position, which remains unfilled. The university's claim of no vacancy due to a *% quota appears unfounded. I request the court to ensure transparency and adherence to the actual vacancy status, thereby facilitating my rightful appointment."
If you need further assistance or a referral to local lawyers, feel free to ask!
Also add to disclose the claimants list or names which is above the claimant
Case Rating: *
Here's an additional point you might consider including in your rejoinder affidavit:
"In addition to addressing the discrepancies in the vacancy chart, I request the court to mandate the disclosure of the claimants' list or names above my candidature. This will ensure transparency and fairness in the appointment process for the stenographer posts."
If you need more help, feel free to ask!
And after the directives issued by the high court regarding appointment this practice is still on going and no legal impediment raised by the university and in my case they continue highlighting the CRR as a legal impediment which totally injustice that one judgement is being implementing and the other is not make this also as a point
Case Rating: *
It seems like you're dealing with a complex legal issue regarding university appointments and compliance with court directives. To further strengthen your rejoinder affidavit, you may include:
- Highlight the inconsistency in implementing different court judgments.
- Emphasize the lack of legal impediments in other similar cases.
- Request a review of compliance practices by the university.
If you need additional assistance or legal representation, let me know!
Make a strong rejoinder affidavit for me
Case Rating: *
Here's a draft for your rejoinder affidavit:
---
Rejoinder Affidavit
*. Addressing Legal Impediments: The High Court of Allahabad directed appointment of petitioners in June and December. The university's claim of pending cadre recruitment rules does not constitute a valid legal impediment to disregard this directive.
*. Vacancy Discrepancies: The vacancy chart provided by the university shows only two vacant posts from * to December *, while an RTI reply confirms * vacant posts, including my father's stenographer position. The claim of no vacancy due to a *% quota is unfounded.
*. Disclosure Request: I request the disclosure of the claimants' list or names above my candidature to ensure transparency and fairness in the appointment process.
*. Inconsistency in Judgment Implementation: Highlight the ongoing practice of implementing one court judgment while ignoring another. Emphasize the lack of legal impediments in similar cases, requesting a review of university compliance practices.
---
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?