- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Alok Kumar Singh Petitioner(S) v. State Of U.P. (S).
Factual and Procedural Background
The Supreme Court was seized of numerous transferred writ petitions from the Allahabad High Court, each registered as a “T.C.(C)” matter. The petitions arise out of the recruitment process for positions such as Sub-Inspector and Platoon Commander in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court dealt with varied grievances, including:
- One petition that concerned payment of stipend/salary rather than the recruitment process itself;
- Several petitions challenging the manner or adequacy of the medical examination required for recruitment, particularly in light of an earlier High Court order that had constituted a specialised Medical Board;
- Petitions alleging that, despite police or district-level clearance and inclusion in the selection list, the petitioners had not been appointed or sent for training;
- Requests for clarification and implementation of the Court’s previous order dated 30-11-2017 regarding preparation of a single merit list, treatment of candidates who had used whitener or blade on answer sheets, and the interplay of merit, reservation and preference.
Many of the transferred cases were finally disposed of through directions to the State of Uttar Pradesh to act within specified time-frames, while the remaining matters were adjourned to 21-02-2018 for further compliance review.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a writ petition concerned solely with stipend/salary should remain before the Supreme Court or be remanded to the High Court for expeditious disposal.
- Whether, in light of the High Court’s earlier directions in Janardan Singh v. State of U.P., the petitioners must undergo medical examination by the same (or a similarly constituted) Medical Board.
- Whether the State is obliged to issue appointment letters or send candidates for training when they have already secured police or district clearance and appear in the final selection list.
- What clarifications are necessary for implementing the Supreme Court’s order dated 30-11-2017 concerning a single integrated list and the simultaneous application of merit, reservation and preference, especially for candidates who altered answer sheets using whitener or blades.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Arguments
- Despite obtaining police clearance, no appointment letters have been issued.
- Some petitioners have been acquitted in all criminal cases and appear in the selection list, yet they have not been sent for training.
- Certain petitioners already possess a “no objection” clearance from the District Magistrate but still await training.
- Their cases are allegedly covered by this Court’s judgment dated 18-07-2014 in Civil Appeal No. 6547 of 2014.
- In several matters the High Court had ordered re-examination by a Medical Board, but the State has not complied.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Janardan Singh v. State of U.P. (High Court order dated 28-08-2015) | Constitution of a specialised Medical Board for recruitment-related medical disputes. | The Supreme Court directed that petitioners be examined by a Medical Board constituted on the same lines, allowing substitution of retired Board members. |
| Judgment of this Court dated 18-07-2014 in C.A. No. 6547 of 2014 | Relied on by a petitioner as allegedly governing his entitlement to appointment. | The Court did not apply the precedent but asked the State’s counsel to obtain instructions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court’s analysis was pragmatic and case-specific rather than doctrinal:
- Remand of stipend/salary matter: Observing that the first petition dealt solely with stipend/salary and “has nothing to do with the recruitment process,” the Court remitted it to the High Court for expedited disposal within six months.
- Medical Board examinations: Noting the peculiar facts and the High Court’s earlier reliance on Janardan Singh, the Court made the High Court’s interim order for medical examination “absolute.” It clarified that retired Board members could be replaced and ordered the State to complete the examinations within one month.
- Non-appointment despite clearance: In petitions where candidates had police or district clearance but no appointment, the Court required the Additional Advocate General/Standing Counsel for the State to obtain instructions and file status reports. Petitioners were directed to supply copies of their petitions and relevant High Court orders within two days.
- Implementation of 30-11-2017 order: Responding to the State’s request for clarification, the Court confirmed that only one list should be followed—even for candidates who used whitener or blades—and that merit, reservation and preference must all be honoured. It also provided a data-collection format and fixed a deadline of 27-01-2018 for the State to receive complete information.
- Training and preference: Candidates already in training need not be considered for change of preference unless further orders issue, whereas those yet to start training can seek preference-based adjustments.
- Limitation of precedential value: The Court expressly stated that its orders were confined to the “very peculiar facts and circumstances” and “shall not be taken as a precedent.”
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF / DIRECTIONS ISSUED.
The Court disposed of several transferred cases by making the High Court’s interim medical-examination orders absolute and by setting strict timelines for compliance. Remaining matters were adjourned to 21-02-2018 for further monitoring. The primary consequence is that:
- The State of Uttar Pradesh must complete Medical Board examinations and file status reports within the stipulated periods.
- Appointments and training are to proceed based on a single consolidated list that respects merit, reservation and declared preferences.
- Because the Court declared its directions non-precedential, the ruling is confined to the specific batch of recruitment disputes and does not establish a general rule for future cases.
1. We find that this petition has nothing to do with the recruitment process as it pertains to stipend/salary. Therefore, this matter is sent back to the High Court with a request to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of its listing.
2. The transferred case is, accordingly, disposed of.
T.C. (C) No. 119/2017 (Item No. 7.41)
3. We find that the High Court in the peculiar facts of the case has directed the writ petitioner(s) before it to be sent for medical examination by the Medical Board constituted by the Court in the case of Janardan Singh v. State of U.P., vide order dated 28.08.2015.
4. The transferred case is hence disposed of making the said order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the High Court in Writ A. No. 49308/2015 absolute, making it further clear that in case any of the personnel in the Board has retired, it will be open to the State to substitute them appropriately. The needful shall be done within one month.
T.C. (C) No. 292/2017 (Item No. 7.234)
5. On the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite police clearance no appointment has yet been offered to the petitioner, we direct the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State to get further instruction.
6. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of this petition to the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., within two days, along with the order of the High Court.
7. List on 21.02.2018 at 2.00 P.M.
T.C. (C) Nos. 117/2017, 210/2017, 284/2017, 288/2017, 293/2017 & W.P.(C) NO. 22/2018 (Item Nos. 7.76, 7.173, 7.227, 7.231, 7.235, 10)
8. We direct the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State to get instruction and file a Status Report in these cases.
9. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of these petitions to the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., within two days, along with the order(s) of the High Court.
10. List on 21.02.2018 at 2.00 P.M.
T.C. (C) No. 158/2017 (Item No. 7.126)
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already been acquitted in all the criminal cases and in the list he has been shown as selected. However, he has not yet been sent for training.
12. We direct the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State to get instruction in this case.
13. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of this petition to the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., within two days, along with the order(s) of the High Court.
14. List on 21.02.2018 at 2.00 P.M.
T.C. (C) No. 92/2017 (Item No. 7.75)
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Magistrate has already given the clearance that there is no objection for appointment. It is also submitted that the petitioner stands selected but not sent for training.
16. We direct the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State to get instruction in this case.
17. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of this petition to the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., within two days, along with the order(s) of the High Court.
18. List on 21.02.2018 at 2.00 P.M.
T.C. (C) Nos. 76/2017, 94/2017, 95/2017, 130/2017, 170/2017, 290/2017 & 300/2017 (Item Nos. 7.48, 7.78, 7.80, 7.98, 7.136, 7.233, 7.241)
19. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in all these cases the High Court had passed an interim order for re-examination by a Medical Board. In one of the connected matters i.e. T.C. (C) No. 119/2017 we have already directed the State to comply with the order within a period of one month.
20. Therefore, these cases are also disposed of in the same line, with a direction that in case there is an interim order passed by the High Court for re-examination by the Medical Board they shall also be subjected to medical examination, as ordered by this Court in T.C. (C) No. 119/2017. The needful be done within a period of one month.
T.C. (C) Nos. 78/2017 & 253/2017 (Item Nos. 7.51 & 7.210)
21. The petitioners have a complaint that they have not been subjected to proper medical examination. It is submitted that in all the similarly situated cases, the High Court had directed the petitioners to be put to medical examination by a Medical Board. In case the petitioners are also similarly situated, we direct the State to subject the petitioners in these cases also to medical examination by a Medical Board, as in the case of the petitioners in T.C. (C) No. 119/2017, within a period of one month.
22. The transferred cases are disposed of accordingly.
T.C.(C) No. 55/2017 (Item No. 7.31)
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that his case is covered by the judgment of this Court dated 18.07.2014 passed in C.A. No. 6547/2014.
24. We direct the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State to get instruction in this case.
25. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of this petition to the AAG/Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., within two days, along with a copy of the order passed by this Court, referred to above.
26. List on 21.02.2018 at 2.00 P.M.
REST OF THE MATTERS
27. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the order dated 30.11.2017 could not be fully implemented because of lack of clarification regarding the candidates who used whitener, blade etc.
28. We make it clear that since the candidates who have used whitener, blade etc. have otherwise been permitted, the State need to follow only one list.
29. It is also clarified that in the matter of appointment pursuant to our order dated 30.11.2017 all the three factors, namely, merit, reservation and preference should be taken into consideration.
30. We request the learned counsel to furnish the information in the format now given at paragraph 13 of the affidavit, handed over to the learned counsel for the parties in Court today, which will be filed during the course of the day. The information, as above, be furnished to the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P. before 5.00 P.M. on 27.01.2018. We further make it clear that column ‘f’ in the format is regarding grievances which shall contain any other information that is not already covered by the other columns.
31. As far as the candidates who have already been sent for training, either as Sub Inspector or as Platoon Commander, their claims for change of preference need not be considered until any orders are issued by the Court. Needless to say that in the case of those candidates who are yet to be sent for training, the factor of preference will also be taken into consideration.
32. We make it clear that all the orders passed by this Court are in the very peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases and shall not be taken as a precedent.
33. For further hearing list on 21.02.2018 at 2.00 P.M.
Alert