- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Surendra Kumar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
A selection process was initiated by the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission for 178 posts of Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools pursuant to an advertisement dated 4-8-2006. After initiation, the Subordinate Service Selection Commission was dissolved by the State Government and the process was entrusted to the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (the appellant). Results were declared on 6-5-2010 and recommendations were made to the State Government in tranches: 156 posts (12-8-2010), 8 posts (9-5-2011), 11 posts (4-5-2012), and 1 post (28-8-2012), totalling 176 recommendations. Two posts were not filled due to directions of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 32960 of 2010. The State Government issued appointment letters to 176 candidates, but 7 did not join and their candidature was cancelled on 18-4-2013.
On 30-4-2013, the Director of Education (Basic) requested the appellant Commission to send names of 7 candidates in order of merit for appointment from the wait-list. The appellant refused by communication dated 23-7-2013, stating that the wait-list could be operated only within one year from the main recommendation (12-8-2010), and the request came after 2 years and 11 months. The first respondent filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of the 23-7-2013 communication and a direction to forward additional names from the wait-list. The High Court (order dated 18-5-2018) allowed the writ petition, quashed the communication, and directed sending requisite names. The appellant Commission appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- For purposes of operating the wait-list (valid for one year under Government instructions), whether the one-year period should be computed from the initial recommendation dated 12-8-2010 (covering 156 posts) or from the last recommendation dated 28-8-2012.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant Commission's Arguments
- The life of the wait-list is one year and must be computed from the initial recommendation dated 12-8-2010, when recommendations were made for a substantial number of vacancies.
- The High Court erred in computing the one-year period from the last recommendation dated 28-8-2012.
Respondent (Original Writ Petitioner)'s Arguments
- The requisition was for 178 posts, but only 156 names were recommended on 12-8-2010, with further recommendations made thereafter; therefore, the one-year period should be computed from the last recommendation, not from 12-8-2010.
- Reliance was placed on Sheo Shyam v. State of U.P. (2005) 10 SCC 314 (judgment dated 16-2-2004).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sheo Shyam v. State of U.P. (2005) 10 SCC 314 (dated 16-2-2004) | Interpreted an office memorandum dated 14-1-1999 which stated that the one-year period was to be reckoned from the last date of taking names from the waiting list. | Distinguished as fact-specific; the Court held the principle in that case could not be applied because it turned on a categorical office memorandum (14-1-1999) not shown to govern the present facts. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that Government of Uttar Pradesh instructions (Government Orders referred to as dated 29-8-1992, 31-1-1994, and 15-11-1999) make it clear that a wait-list is valid only for one year. Although the requisition was for 178 posts, the appellant Commission made an initial recommendation for a substantial number of posts (156) on 12-8-2010 after declaration of results. While further recommendations were made later, the Court found no reason to compute the one-year period from the later letters rather than from 12-8-2010, when the substantive recommendations were first made.
On this basis, the Court held that the one-year period for operating the wait-list had to be computed from 12-8-2010 and not from the last recommendation (28-8-2012, for one post). The Court also considered the respondent's reliance on Sheo Shyam but held it did not assist because that case involved an office memorandum (14-1-1999) explicitly providing that the one-year period ran from the last date of taking names from the waiting list; the Court found it inapplicable to the present fact situation.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED: The appeal was allowed and the High Court’s judgment and order dated 18-5-2018 (quashing the Commission’s 23-7-2013 communication and directing issuance of additional names from the wait-list) was set aside. No order as to costs was made.
The direct effect is that the High Court’s direction to forward additional names from the wait-list to fill the 7 non-joining vacancies does not stand, consistent with the Court’s view that the wait-list could not be operated beyond one year computed from 12-8-2010. The opinion does not indicate that any broader precedent was laid down beyond applying the one-year validity rule to the computation date on these facts.
R. Subhash Reddy, J.— We have heard Shri Rajiv Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Alok Singh, learned counsel for respondents.
2. This appeal is filed by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18-5-2018 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P. 2018 SCC OnLine All 2871 Necessary facts in brief, for disposal of this appeal are as under.
3. U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission had initiated the process for selection of 178 posts of Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools. The said Commission advertised by issuing advertisement dated 4-8-2006 in various newspapers for selecting the candidates.
4. After initiating the process of selection, U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission was dissolved by the order of the State Government, and the said process was entrusted to the appellant, U.P. Public Service Commission. After completing the selection process, the results were declared on 6-5-2010 and recommendations were made by the appellant Commission to the State Government in respect of selected candidates by various letters in the following manner:
Sl. No. Date Letter No. No. of posts 1. 12-8-2010 26/3/E-3/2007-2008 0156 2. 9-5-2011 26/3/E-3/2007-2008 08 3. 4-5-2012 26/3/E-3/2007-2008 011 4. 28-8-2012 26/11/E-3/2007-2008 01
5. Altogether, recommendations were made to fill up 176 vacancies. As is evident from the counter-affidavit, filed before the High Court, two posts were not filled, in view of directions 2010 SCC OnLine All 3375 issued by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 32960 of 2010. After receipt of recommendation for 176 candidates, the State Government issued appointment letters to them, but 7 out of them did not join. Therefore, their candidature was cancelled by order dated 18-4-2013.
6. By letter dated 30-4-2013, Director of Education (Basic), requested the appellant Commission to send the names of 7 candidates in order of merit for appointment. The said request has been turned down by the appellant Commission vide letter dated 23-7-2013, stating that recommendation was mainly forwarded by the Commission on 12-8-2010 and the wait-list is to be operated within a period of one year, and the request for 7 more persons has been sent after 2 years 11 months.
7. Referring to GOs dated 29-8-1992, 31-1-1994 and 15-11-1999, it is stated that wait-list can be operated only for a period of one year and as the said period has expired, therefore, request from the Director of Education (Basic) for sending 7 more names was not accepted.
8. The first respondent herein, has filed writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad, for quashing of the communication dated 23-7-2013 issued by the appellant Commission with a further direction to the appellant to forward additional names from the wait-list prepared for the post of Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools.
9. The High Court, by the judgment and order dated 18-5-2018 2018 SCC OnLine All 2871, allowed the writ petition by quashing the communication dated 23-7-2013 and issued further direction to send the names of requisite number of candidates to the Director of Education (Basic).
10. In this appeal, it is the case of the appellant Commission that, for substantial number of vacancies, recommendations were made vide letter dated 12-8-2010 and the life of wait-list is only one year, and such period has to be computed from the initial recommendation dated 12-8-2010. It is contended that the High Court has committed error by computing the period of one year from the last recommendation made, vide letter dated 28-8-2012.
11. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel Shri Alok Singh, appearing for the respondent/original petitioner, that the requisition was made for making selections for 178 number of posts and in the recommendation made vide letter dated 12-8-2010 only 156 names are recommended and thereafter further recommendations were made. As such, the period of one year is to be computed from the last recommendation but not from 12-8-2010. In support of his case, the learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court dated 16-2-2004 rendered in Sheo Shyam v. State of U.P. (2005) 10 SCC 314
12. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we have perused the order dated 18-5-2018 2018 SCC OnLine All 2871 passed by the High Court and other material placed on record. For the purpose of operating wait-list, the Government of Uttar Pradesh has issued instructions from time to time. It is clear from the various government orders that wait-list period is valid only for a period of one year. Though requisition is made for making selection for 178 number of posts, but the appellant Commission, after declaring results of the examination, has made initial recommendation for substantive number of posts i.e. 156 posts vide letter dated 12-8-2010. It appears that the said list is prepared by including candidates who have submitted all the requisite documents within the period prescribed. Further recommendations were also made, but there is no reason for not computing the period of one year from 12-8-2010. When recommendations were made for substantive number of posts on 12-8-2010, we are of the view that period of one year for operating wait-list is to be computed from 12-8-2010 but not from the last recommendation made for one post, vide letter dated 28-8-2012. The reason for restricting 156 names in the initial recommendation vide letter dated 12-8-2010, is explained in Para 11 of the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court.
13. We have also perused the judgment of this Court in Sheo Shyam v. State of U.P. (2005) 10 SCC 314 dated 16-2-2004, relied on by the learned counsel for Respondent 1 but same would not render any assistance in support of his case having regard to the fact situation in the said case. Office memorandum dated 14-1-1999 which was interpreted, was categorical to the effect that period of one year is to be reckoned from last date of taking names from the waiting list. As such, it cannot be applied to the facts of the case at hand.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 18-5-2018 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P. 2018 SCC OnLine All 2871 is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.
Alert