- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mohd. Altaf (2) And Others v. U.P Public Service Commission And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The group of matters concerns the selection of Principals for State educational institutions in Uttar Pradesh pursuant to an advertisement issued in 1996. Allegations were raised that more meritorious candidates were overlooked while less-qualified candidates were appointed for extraneous reasons. The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (U.P. PSC) allegedly failed to disclose the full merit list, prompting the Court to seek accurate information directly from the Commission. Repeated adjournments were granted because the U.P. PSC did not file a complete affidavit, leading the Court to suspect suppression of material facts. The present order records the Court’s frustration with the Commission’s non-compliance and issues further directions.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the U.P. PSC acted arbitrarily and in breach of its duty of transparency by withholding the consolidated merit list of candidates for the 1996 Principal recruitment.
- Whether the selection process violated the requirement that appointments to State services be made strictly on merit.
- What interim measures and sanctions are appropriate to ensure compliance and protect pending vacancies while the truth is ascertained.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’/Appellants’ Arguments
- Eligible and higher-ranking candidates were denied appointment, while less meritorious candidates were selected.
- The U.P. PSC failed to publish or disclose the merit list, suggesting favoritism and non-transparency.
- The Commission ignored earlier court directions to pass reasoned orders addressing the petitioners’ objections.
U.P. PSC’s Position
- Filed an incomplete affidavit and maintained that the consolidated merit list prepared for 418 interviewed candidates “is not required to be disclosed to all the candidates.”
- Claimed that no vacancies remain from the 1996 advertisement, asserting that subsequent recruitment cycles (1997 and 1998) addressed the remaining posts.
- Sought repeated adjournments and provided information through a Section Officer rather than the Secretary, which the Court viewed as evasive.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that State service vacancies must be filled bona fide and strictly on merit. Transparency, particularly disclosure of marks and merit lists, is integral to maintaining public confidence in the recruitment process. The Court noted persistent non-compliance by the U.P. PSC despite multiple opportunities and orders, interpreting this conduct as an attempt to suppress material facts and possibly facilitate favoritism.
It found the Commission’s stance—that the consolidated merit list need not be revealed—“absurd” and contrary to duties owed by a constitutional functionary. The Court also criticized the administrative culture of the Commission, observing that essential information was sought from a Section Officer while the Secretary remained uninformed, substantiating earlier concerns of maladministration.
Given these factors, the Court deemed it necessary to impose personal costs on senior officials, freeze further recruitment, and mandate detailed affidavits to secure truthful disclosure.
Holding and Implications
ORDER: The matters are adjourned to 22-1-2002. The State Government is restrained from issuing any new advertisement to fill Principal posts in the interim. The Chairman and Secretary of the U.P. PSC shall each deposit personal costs of Rs. 10,000 with the Court registry. The U.P. PSC must furnish the complete list of 418 interviewed candidates and annex the full result sheet in a comprehensive affidavit. The Secretary, Education Department, State of U.P., is directed to conduct a personal verification of the Commission’s recruitment processes for 1996 and 1997 and file an affidavit within four weeks. The Secretary of the U.P. PSC must be present on the next hearing date.
Implications: The order temporarily halts further recruitment of Principals, compels transparency from the U.P. PSC, and imposes personal financial sanctions on its top officials. While no new legal precedent is articulated, the decision signals the judiciary’s readiness to enforce accountability and transparency in public service recruitment.
Order
1. It is settled that while filling up the vacancies in the State services, the Government has to act bona fide and not arbitrarily and also appointment to the services should be strictly on merits. Allegation in this group of matters is that selected candidates who were eligible for appointment on merits were not appointed and less meritorious candidates were appointed for extraneous reasons. For this purpose, merit list was not at all disclosed. For finding out the truth, we are adjourning these matters for getting correct information from the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short “U.P PSC”) with regard to the selection of the candidates for the post of Principals which were advertised in the year 1996.
2. Repeatedly, matters were adjourned at the request of learned counsel for U.P PSC on one or the other pretext, but unfortunately, the complete affidavit is not filed till today. It appears that U.P PSC is interested in suppressing some facts from the Court as well as from the candidates who appeared in the examination for some ulterior purpose. From a constitutional functionary like Public Service Commission, much more higher standards are expected not only by the courts but also by the public at large. If there is maladministration at the level of Public Service Commission there would be rampant favouritism in making appointments to the services of the State.
3. Despite our various orders making abundantly clear, today also the affidavit which is filed on behalf of U.P PSC is not complete and contains half truth. They were directed to produce a consolidated merit list of all the candidates, however, it has been stated along with the affidavit that a consolidated merit list of all 418 candidates, who had been called for interview, has been prepared and is kept ready to be produced for perusal of the Court. When we asked the learned counsel for U.P PSC to clarify the statement, he stated that the said consolidated list is not required to be disclosed to all the candidates. In our view, this is an absurd stand because it is the duty of the Public Service Commission to declare on the notice board result indicating marks with all other relevant details. In such examinations transparency is expected and results cannot be kept secret.
4. It has also been pointed out that the advertisement was given for 216 posts of Principals in the year 1996. Only 103 vacancies were filled in on the basis of 1996 Examination. The posts of 113 vacancies were not filled in due to non-availability of the suitable candidates and were carried forward for the next year for which advertisement was issued and examinations were held in the year 1997. On instructions, it is also submitted by learned counsel for U.P PSC that at present there is no vacancy left against the said advertisement. Here also U.P PSC wants to play with the Court. It has been pointed out that in 1997 advertisement was given for 548 posts and only 273 posts were filled in and 273 posts were kept vacant. In the year 1998, 100 posts of Principals were advertised.
5. At this stage the learned counsel was asked to make correct statement after obtaining instructions. Learned counsel instead of getting information from the Secretary concerned, who is present in the Court, sought information from the Section Officer who is also present in the Court. Hence, it appears that our observations made in the order dated 3-10-2001 that the business of the Commission is run or administered by the Section Officers, are justified because today also the Secretary is not in a position to clear the doubts which are raised.
6. In this view of the matter, for filing complete affidavit the matter is adjourned. In the meantime, the State Government is directed not to fill any post of Principal by issuing new advertisement. The Chairman and the Secretary of U.P PSC are directed to deposit with the Registry costs of Rs 10,000 each for wasting the Court's time. Such costs shall be paid by the concerned personally and not by the Commission. U.P PSC is also further directed to file affidavit in SLP (C) No. 10048 of 1999 which pertains to the examination which was held in the year 1997.
7. Learned counsel for U.P PSC is directed to furnish copy of the list of 418 candidates to the learned counsel for the appellant applicants within one week from today. Along with the affidavit the result sheet (complete list) should also be annexed. The Secretary of the State of U.P, Education Department is directed to personally verify the working of U.P PSC with regard to the appointment of Principals/Lecturers/teachers on the basis of the advertisements given in the year 1996 and 1997 and file necessary affidavit within four weeks from today.
8. Learned counsel for some of the appellant-petitioners states that despite the specific order directing U.P PSC to pass reasoned order after taking into consideration the objections raised by the appellant-petitioners no such reasoned order is communicated to them. In this view of the matter a copy of the said orders be produced before this Court along with the affidavit. The Secretary of U.P PSC should remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing. The matters are adjourned for 22-1-2002.
Court Masters
Alert