4 min readLucknowUpdated: Apr 5, 2026 10:38 AM IST
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission (UPSSSC) to hold the process for selection of class III and IV staff expeditiously for 50 vacancies at the Advocate General’s office on a priority basis.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW VIDEO
The court issued the direction after the government’s counsels during the previous hearing had raised concern about staff shortage in the AG office, saying a large number of vacancies have remained vacant over the years. The counsels had responded to the reasons behind delay in conveying another bench’s instructions to the authorities concerned.
Hearing the matter on March 30, the division bench of Justices Ajit Kumar and Devendra Singh-I observed, “We are seriously concerned with the present situation in the Establishment of the Advocate General-cum-State Law Officer for the reason that working of the Office has reduced to such a level that proper assistance is not being rendered to the Courts leading to delay in justice.”
The bench added, “We want that Commission should proceed to hold selection expeditiously against the vacancies on priority basis. Priority should be fixed over and above the other vacancies which may be in the que for the process of holding selection.”
During the March 30 hearing, in compliance to court’s previous order, the Special Secretary (Law) and the Additional Legal Remembrancer, filed an affidavit bringing on record the requisition sent to the UPSSSC for selection and recommendation for the vacant 50 positions in the AG’s office at the Allahabad and Lucknow benches.
The court enquired about the promotion for the Level-VIII vacancies to get the exact number of the vacant positions for which recruitment shall be made after the recommendation of the Commission. The Additional Advocate General submitted that there was no information currently available, but the exact details will be brought on record soon.
On this, the bench ordered that the UPSSSC’s counsel shall apprise the court about the status of the recruitment process against the requisition sent to the Commission on March 20.
The bench listed the matter for hearing on April 17.
The previous hearing
Story continues below this ad
During a hearing on February 26, another division bench of Justices Ajit Kumar and Swarupama Chaturvedi had expressed concern over the court’s instructions not conveyed to the authorities related to a petition filed by one Subedar Yadav.
Yadav through his counsel had contended that recovery was sought to be pressed into service by the Gorakhpur district administration under the UP Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963, without any show-cause notice having been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had sought relief in the matter.
The division bench had observed… “We were informed that the instructions were yet to be received as no response was there available and hence we took exception of the working of the officer concerned and we directed for appearance of the District Magistrate concerned to explain his conduct.”
“We do not appreciate the way the office of the Advocate General is working. If there is any shortage of staff and the recruitment is not taking place for a long period of time, then it is either the Government to be blamed or the office of the Advocate General but in no circumstance the Court can be forced to wait for instructions and for the proper assistance from Standing Counsel it amounts to interference in the administration of justice and this ultimately leads to further add on the pendency,” the court had said.
Story continues below this ad
It added, “When we want speedy and efficacious justice delivery system then system must be in place. A system if paralyzed for either not filling up the vacancies in time or for want of vacancies, the justice delivery system will certainly fail.”
The division bench had asked the state government and the Advocate General about the steps being taken to expedite the recruitment process against the vacancies.
It also directed to file a “proper affidavit” in the matter by the secretary concerned of the state government, “failing which the court will be compelled to take serious view of the matter”.
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
