SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 707

2007(5) Supreme 33
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
C.K. Thakker & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
State of U.P. & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Nidhi Khanna & Anr.— Respondents
Appeal (civil) 2442 of 2007
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10984 of 2004)
Decided on : 11-05-2007
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. Shobha Dikshit, Sr. Adv., Ms. Niranjana Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Pramod Swarup, Advocate.

Headnote:Service law – Uttar Pradesh Higher Services Commission Act, 1980 – Sections 12, 13 - Advertisement for post of lecturers in different non-government Degree(P.G.) Colleges under Advertisement No. 29 – Respondent1 on applying for post of lecturer in geography was selected and placed in wait list – Non appointment of respondent 1 – Appointment of another candidate for said post by Appellant – Respondent on approaching Director of higher education was informed that since she did not join duty even after communication of appointment being sent to her, other person was appointed - Writ petition there against by Respondent on plea that she never received any order or communication about her appointment – High Court allowing writ petition directed appellant to give appointment to respondent – Appeal – Evidence on record showed that respondent 1 was selected and empanelled in waitlist pursuant to Advertisement No. 29 in July 2001 – No dispute that Advertisement no. 32 was thereafter issued and Merit list was prepared in March 2003 – Under statutory provisions of Act, as soon as new list is prepared old list comes to an end - Respondent had no right to insist for appointment after new list was prepared – High Court hence erred in issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing authority act contrary to law – Impugned order passed by High Court being unsustainable, held liable to be set aside – (1998) 3 SCC 45 Relied upon. (Paras 12 to 18)

       Facts of the case :

       An Advertisement was given for post of lecturers in different non-government Degree(P.G.) Colleges under Advertisement No. 29. Respondent1 on applying for post of lecturer in geography was selected and placed in wait list. However respondent 1 was not appointed. Appellant appointed another candidate for said post. Respondent on approaching Director of higher education was informed that since she did not join duty even after communication of appointment being sent to her, other person was appointed. On appeal, High Court allowed writ petition and directed appellant to give appointment to Respondent.

       Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       The Court held that evidence on record showed that respondent 1 was selected and empanelled in waitlist pursuant to Advertisement No. 29 in July 2001. No dispute that Advertisement no. 32 was thereafter issued and Merit list was prepared in March 2003. Under statutory provisions of Act, as soon as new list is prepared old list comes to an end. Respondent had no right to insist for appointment after new list was prepared. High Court hence erred in issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing authority act contrary to law. Impugned order passed by High Court being unsustainable, held liable to be set aside.

JUDGMENT

C.K. Thakker, J.—

1.Leave granted.

2.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on March 15, 2004 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 45418 of 2003. By the said judgment, the High Court directed the appellants to give an appointment letter to respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner) for the post of Lecturer in Geography in C.M.P. Degree College, Allahabad ‘forthwith’.

3.Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in June, 2000, Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (‘Commission’ for short) advertised under Advertisement No. 29, vacancies of Lecturers in different non-Government Degree (P.G.) Colleges. In pursuance of the said advertisement, respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) applied for the post of Lecturer in Geography in August, 2000. A Select List was prepared on July 19, 2001. Respondent No. 1 was declared selected, but her name was placed at Serial No. 1 in the Wait-List of General Category candidates. It is the case of the appellants that the Director of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad, appellant No. 2, herein issued an order on November 23, 2002 by which respondent No. 1 was appointed as Lecturer in Geography in R.G. Girls College, Meerut. According to the appellants, however, respondent No. 1 did not join at Meerut College and hence another candidate was appointed and placement of respondent No. 1 was cancelled. On March 5, 2003, another merit list was prepared pursuant to Advertisement No. 32 and names of selected candidates were received by the Director on March 7, 2003. On July 3, 2003, respondent No. 1 met the Director and stated that though she was selected as Lecturer in Geography and was placed at Sr. No.1 in Wait-List, she had not received a Letter of Appointment. Respondent No. 1 also stated to the Director that there was a vacancy in C.M.P. Degree College, Allahabad and the said College had no objection to appoint respondent No. 1. She, therefore, prayed that she be appointed in C.M.P. Degree College, Allahabad. The prayer was, however, rejected by the appellants on the ground that new list was prepared in March, 2003 under Advertisement No. 32. Respondent No. 1 was selected under Advertisement No. 29, but the said list had lapsed as it was valid only till new list was prepared. Hence, even though C.M.P. College, Allahabad had no objection for appointment of respondent No. 1, she could not be appointed after the new list was prepared. This led respondent No.1 to filing of writ petition. It was her case in the petition that she had never received any order or communication about her appointment as Lecturer in Geography in Meerut College nor was she informed about her placement in that college. Though the appellants herein filed an affidavit controverting the assertion of respondent No.1 (writ petitioner), the Court held that stand of the Authorities was not tenable and they were responsible for not giving appointment to respondent No.1 and had acted arbitrarily. Since respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner) was selected by the Commission and was wait-listed and as there was vacancy of Lecturer in Geography in C.M.P. Degree College, Allahabad, the petition was allowed and a Writ of Mandamus was issued directing the authorities to appoint respondent No. 1 in C.M.P. Degree College, Allahabad ‘forthwith’.

4.The above order is challenged by the Authorities by filing the present appeal. On July 14, 2004, notice was issued and interim stay was granted against the order of the High Court. Affidavits and further affidavits are filed thereafter. Considering the controversy and interim order passed by this Court, direction was issued to the Registry to place the matter for final hearing and that is how the matter has been placed before us.

5.The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the High Court has committed an error of law in directing the Authorities to appoint respondent No.1 forthwith in C.M.P.





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top