Surendra Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others .

1. We have heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Chief Standing Counsel for State and Shri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for Commission.

2. Selection process was initiated by U.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Commission”) for 178 posts of Sub Deputy Inspector of Schools. Recommendations were made to Government in respect of selected candidates sent by various letters by Commission in the following manner:

(i) By letter no. 26/3E-3/2007-08 dated 12.8.2010 the names of 156 candidates were recommended to Directorate and State Government for appointment.

(ii) By letter no. 26/3E-3/2007-08 dated 9.5.2011 the names of 8 candidates recommended for appointment.

(iii) By letter no. 26/3E-3/2007-08 dated 4.5.2012 the names of 11 candidates was further recommended.

(iv) By letter No. 26/11/3E-3/2007-08 dated 28.8.2012 recommendations was made with regard to one more candidate.

3. State Government thereafter issued appointment letters to 176 candidates, but 7 out of them did not join, therefore, their candidature was cancelled by order dated 18.4.2013 and by letter dated 30.4.2013 Director of Education (Basic), requested Commission to send names of seven more candidates, in order of merit, for appointment. Said request has been rejected by Commission vide letter dated 23.7.2013 stating that recommendation was mainly forwarded to Commission on 12.8.2010 and request for seven more names has been sent after 2 years 11 months from said date. In view of Government Orders dated 29.8.1992, 31.1.1994 and 15.11.1999 waiting list could have continued only one year and that period had already been expired, therefore, request of Director of Education (Basic) for sending seven more names can not be accepted.

4. Learned senior counsel for petitioner contended that from this Government Order dated 29.8.1992 it is clear that period of one year shall be counted from the date of allotment of vacancies to concerned department. In the present case, recommendations were made by Commission to Department not by one letter, but by various letters i.e. 12.8.2010, 9.5.2011, 4.5.2012 and one last 28.8.2012. In such circumstances, it would be last recommendation which will be relevant to count period of one year and Commission in present case counting said period from first letter has committed manifest error in law.

5. When confronted, learned counsel for Commission could not dispute that since allocation of selection candidates was made by various letters, hence it is the date of last letter which should be taken into account for the purpose of counting period of one year for continuance of waiting list.

6. Learned Standing Counsel also could not dispute aforesaid proposition of law.

7. Having gone through the aforesaid government orders, we are also of the view that recommendation when made through various letters, then it is the last letter which could be relevant to count period for which wait list would operate and Commission in taking said period from first letter has clearly erred in law. Inasmuch as though the first letter made recommendations of 156 candidates out of 178, but the fact remains that the entire recommendations was not made on that date and unless the entire recommendation is made, it cannot be said that the validity period of waiting list would commence only when recommendation of select list against the number of vacancies. Recruitment has already been made and only then the action to proceed on merit would arise since the last recommendation was made on 28.8.2012 in respect to the select candidate against the number of vacancies for which recruitment was made, it is thus date which would be relevant for determining the validity period of waiting list. The Commission, in taking otherwise view, has erred in law.

8. This Court vide order dated 19.12.2017 however, required learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions as to whether unfilled 7 posts, pursuant to cancellation of candidature of 7 candidates who did not join, have been requisitioned to Commission or not. In this regard, learned Chief Standing Counsel stated that no further requisition has been made to Commission.

9. In the result, writ petition is allowed and communication letter dated 23.7.2013 (annexure-3 to writ petition) is set aside and Commission is directed to take appropriate steps in the light of government order dated 29.8.1992 and send names of requisite number of candidates to Director of Education (Basic) within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.