- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Alok Kumar Singh And Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
An advertisement issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh in May 2011 invited applications for 4010 vacancies—3698 posts of Sub-Inspector and 312 posts of Platoon Commander. Litigation followed the selection process. A batch of Special Leave Petitions, writ petitions, contempt petitions and transfer cases reached the Supreme Court of India.
On 14 September 2017, the Court noted that an affidavit had verified 165 candidates, of whom 95 were selected; it ordered that these 95 candidates be sent for training. The Court further recorded category-wise cut-off marks, directed the State to file an affidavit on the number of remaining eligible candidates, and requested verification of all persons who had approached the High Court on or before 31 December 2016.
In a subsequent order dated 22 March 2018, a three-judge Bench considered the status of the recruitment, observed that some candidates had already been trained, and issued a series of directions to ensure that the originally advertised vacancies are filled in compliance with earlier interim orders.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh is obliged to fill all 4010 advertised vacancies for Sub-Inspectors and Platoon Commanders in accordance with the Court’s prior directions.
- How candidates appointed over and above the sanctioned strength of 4010 posts should be treated pending final adjudication.
- The procedure for considering candidates who had approached the High Court on or before the cut-off date of 31 December 2016.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners/Applicants/Interveners
- Referred to the order dated 1 August 2017 showing that 3533 candidates were already selected and many had begun or completed training.
- Contended that a large number of posts remain vacant and requested that additional successful candidates be adjusted against those vacancies even if this exceeds the figure of 4010.
State of Uttar Pradesh
- Informed the Court that, owing to earlier interim orders, more than 4010 appointments may already have been made.
- Indicated willingness to verify particulars of candidates who had approached the High Court by 31 December 2016 and to file the required affidavits.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded primarily on factual verification and administrative fairness rather than on doctrinal analysis:
- It accepted the affidavit dated 13 September 2017 showing that 95 further candidates met the stipulated criteria and directed their immediate dispatch for training.
- The Bench recorded category-wise cut-off marks and sought complete data on remaining eligible candidates to ensure transparency and completeness in the recruitment exercise.
- Recognising that orders passed during the pendency of the matter might have led to appointments exceeding the sanctioned 4010 posts, the Court balanced competing equities: existing appointees would not be disturbed until further orders, but their eventual continuation was left open for argument.
- The Court reaffirmed the cut-off date of 31 December 2016 for entertaining intervention or impleadment, thereby preventing an ever-expanding pool of litigants and stabilising the proceedings.
- Overall, the reasoning reflects the Court’s supervisory role in ensuring that the State completes the recruitment process lawfully, on merit, and in conformity with earlier judicial directions.
Holding and Implications
Directions Issued (Interim)
- The State of Uttar Pradesh shall expeditiously fill the 4010 advertised vacancies on merit and as per the Court’s previous orders.
- Candidates occupying posts in excess of 4010 will not be disturbed until the Court decides their status.
- Applications for intervention or impleadment filed after 31 December 2016 stand disposed of.
- The matters were directed to be listed again—initially on 31 October 2017 and, by the later order, after four weeks from 22 March 2018—for further consideration.
Implications: The orders ensure continued judicial oversight of the recruitment, provide temporary protection to those already appointed, and set a procedural cut-off to contain the litigation. No new legal precedent was established; the impact is confined to the parties and the specific recruitment exercise.
(2018) 6 SCC 815
Order dated 14-9-2017
(Before Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
SLP (C) No. 12538 of 2016 with SLPs (C) Nos. … (CC No. 22932 of 2016), 34047 of 2016, 16432, 16669, 16672, 16723, 21339, 22319 of 2017, Diaries Nos. 18334, 19924, 20008, 20150, 20387, 22129, 22404, 22536, 22655, 25266 of 2017, WPs (C) Nos. 476, 735, 736 of 2017, Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 833-34 of 2017 in CAs Nos. 587-88 of 2016 and Transfer Cases (C) Nos. 51-257 of 2017
1. An affidavit dated 13-9-2017 has been filed indicating that, of the 165 candidates verified, 95 candidates are selected. We direct the State to send those 95 candidates also for training, if they have not already been sent.
2. We find that there are several other issues remaining to be resolved in this case.
3. The candidates who have secured 325.00 cut-off marks in the General Category, 316.0833 cut-off marks in OBC Category and 266.0000 cut-off marks in SC Category, have been subjected to selection. In the case of the candidates who used whitener/blade, etc., the cut-off marks of General Category is 329.2500, the cut-off marks of OBC Category is 321.2500.
4. We direct the Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P. to get an affidavit filed by the competent authority as to how many candidates are remaining to be considered who have obtained the cut-off marks indicated above in the respective categories, after the list is to be revised as per the directions of the High Court. Barring the candidates already selected, the affidavit shall indicate as to how many more candidates are there in the respective categories. The affidavit shall be filed on or before 10-10-2017. The learned Additional Advocate General shall also file a statement as to the outcome of the verification of those people who had approached the High Court, either as petitioners or as interveners.
5. All the persons who are before this Court on the ground that they were before the High Court on or before 31-12-2016, either as petitioners or as interveners, may submit their particulars to the learned Additional Advocate General, who will verify the particulars and submit a report before this Court before 31-10-2017.
6. List the matters on 31-10-2017.
(2018) 6 SCC 816
Order dated 22-3-2018
(Before Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)
SLP (C) No. 12538 of 2016 with SLPs (C) Nos. … (CC No. 22932 of 2016), 34047 of 2016, 16432, 16669, 16672, 16723, 21339, 37085 of 2017, Diaries Nos. 18334, 19924, 20008, 20150, 22129, 22319, 22536, 22655, 25266, 27453 of 2017, Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 735, 736, 1053 of 2017, 22 of 2018, Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 833-834 of 2017 in CAs Nos. 587-88 of 2016, 815 of 2018 in SLP (C) No. 16669 of 2017, Transfer Cases (C) Nos. 51-75, 77, 79-81, 83-93, 96-118, 120-29, 131-59, 161-69, 171-208, 210-22, 224-250, 252, 254-55, 276-89, 291-95, 297, 299 and 307 of 2017
7. Exemption from filing OT granted. Exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment 2016 SCC OnLine All 2581 granted. Permission to file SLPs granted. Delay condoned.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants/interveners as well as the learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
9. An advertisement was issued in May 2011 by the State of Uttar Pradesh for filling up 4010 vacancies out of which there were 3698 vacancies for Sub-Inspectors and 312 vacancies for Platoon Commanders. In our view, these vacancies must be filled up.
10. Our attention has been drawn to an order dated 1-8-2017. In the order dated 1-8-2017, it is mentioned that in the post of Sub-Inspector, 3533 candidates were selected and many of them have already been sent for training and some of them have in fact completed the training. Our attention is also drawn to the order dated 14-9-2017 in which it is noted that all those persons who are before this Court on the ground that they were before the High Court on or before 31-12-2016 either as petitioners or interveners may submit their particulars to the learned Additional Advocate General who will verify the particulars and submit a report before 31-10-2017. We are informed that the needful has been done based on the cut-off date determined by this Court.
11. For the present, in view of the orders passed by this Court and on hearing the learned counsel, we issue the following directions:
11.1. The advertised vacancies of 4010 in the post of Sub-Inspector and Platoon Commanders should be filled up by the State of Uttar Pradesh expeditiously on merits and in terms of the orders passed by this Court, if not already filled up.
11.2. We have been informed by the learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh that due to orders passed from time to time by this Court, perhaps more than 4010 posts have been filled up. If that is so, persons occupying posts in excess of 4010 shall not be disturbed until further orders from this Court.
11.3. Whether the persons who have been appointed in excess of 4010 posts are to continue or their services may be dispensed with will have to be argued by the learned counsel for the parties and we will certainly consider those submissions and pass appropriate orders.
11.4. We may mention that according to the learned counsel for the petitioners a large number of posts are lying vacant and perhaps some persons can be adjusted against those vacant posts over and above 4010 posts. We are not taking any decision on this without hearing the learned counsel for the parties.
11.5. Following the order passed on 14-9-2017, we make it clear and direct that all applications for intervention/impleadment, etc. or fresh matters instituted after the cut-off date of 31-12-2016 stand disposed of.
12. List the remaining matters after four weeks.
Alert