2019 Supreme(SC) 1091

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Anupal Singh and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4815, 4816, 4817, 4818, 4819, 4820, 4821, 4822, 4823, 4824, 4825, 4826, 4827, 4828, 4829, 4830, 4831, 4832, 4833, 4834, 4835, 4836 of 2019
Decided On : 30-09-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Percentage of reservation has to be worked out in relation to number of posts which form cadre strength.
(2) Result of interview cannot be challenged by a candidate who has participated in interview and has taken chance to get selected at interview and ultimately, finds himself to be unsuccessful.
(3) Though powers conferred on Supreme Court by Article 142 are very wide, same cannot be exercised to pass an order inconsistent with express statutory provisions of substantive law.
(4) Selected candidates do not have any indefeasible right to be appointed.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Reservation – Appointment on Post of Technical Assistant-Group-C Agriculture Department – Validity of revised requisition for rectification of wrongful calculation of category-wise vacancies – Percentage of reservation has to be worked out in relation to number of posts which form cadre strength – Revising the number of vacancies in OBC category as 2030 does not violate right of General category candidates because State Legislature has enacted Reservation Act No.4 of 1994 providing for reservation, keeping in mind parameters of Article 16(4) of Constitution of India – By revising requisition, State has endeavoured to achieve object of reservation by working out vacancy for selection of posts in question without causing any prejudice to General category candidates – Revised requisition so made was within purview of competency of State in order to achieve object of UP Reservation Act, 1994 – Total number of vacancies have not been changed or modified – Appropriate authority has taken cadre strength of Technical Assistant Grade-III as a unit in operation of roster in the year to ascertain whether given class or group is adequately represented in service – Revised requisition was well within purview of competence to ensure compliance of reservation in terms of Section 3 of UP Reservation Act, 1994 – Diploma holders were wrongly counted against vacancies in OBC category; while they could not have been counted against OBC category and while doing so, a wrongful calculation had been arrived and same has to be corrected by counting diploma holders against general category – This aspect has not been properly appreciated by High Court – Common impugned judgment set aside – Private respondents/intervenors and candidates who were not issued appointment orders and those who filed writ petitions before High Court shall be granted age relaxation as one-time measure to participate in upcoming recruitment – Age relaxation is strictly a one-time measure. [Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 – Section 3(1); UP Subordinate Agriculture Services Rules, 1993 – Rule 15(3)] (Paras 30, 31, 32, 33, 44, 48 and 78)

(B) Service Law – Appointment – Result of interview cannot be challenged by a candidate who has participated in interview and has taken chance to get selected at interview and ultimately, finds himself to be unsuccessful – Candidates who appeared in interview were well aware about modification/revision in number of vacancies of Technical Assistants in different categories – Private respondents/intervening applicants have appeared in interview with their eyes wide open regarding modified vacancies to be filled up in various categories of posts – Having appeared in interview without any demur or protest, it is not open to candidates to challenge selection process on the ground that there was modification in number of vacancies in different categories and they are estopped by principle of estoppel from challenging the same – High Court should not have granted any relief to private respondents/intervenors. (Paras 51, 54 and 55)

(C) Service Law – Appointment – Selected candidates do not have any indefeasible right to be appointed – Merely because names of candidates were included in provisional select list, they do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed – When selection of successful candidates is challenged, depending upon facts and circumstances of case, successful candidates ought to be put on notice about filing of writ petition by impleading them by issuance of notice in accordance with law. Paras 65 and 71)

(D) Constitution of India – Article 142 – Invocation of – Parameters – Though powers conferred on Supreme Court by Article 142 are very wide, same cannot be exercised to pass an order inconsistent with express statutory provisions of substantive law – Power under Article 142 of Constitution of India can be exercised so as to do complete justice between parties – However, though power under Article 142 of Constitution are plenary in nature, same cannot be construed to mean that power can be used to supplant substantive law applicable to the case. (Para 76)

Facts of the Case:

Present appeals arise out of the judgment dated 10.02.2017 in Writ-C No.34196 of 2015 and batch matters passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in and by which High Court while upholding result of written examination for post of Technical Assistant-Group-C Agriculture Department, quashed selection process subsequent to written examination and directed Principal Secretary, State of U.P. to send requisition to Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission on the basis of quantifiable data and cadre strength as well as actual persons working in different categories so that interview may be conducted afresh and complete selection.

Findings of the Court:

As per provisions of Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, specific percentages of vacancies have been reserved for different categories viz., (a) Scheduled Castes – 21% (b) Scheduled Tribes – 2% and (c) OBC – 27%. In any recruitment, this statutory permissible limit of reservation not exceeding 50% has to be maintained. Power under Article 142 of Constitution of India cannot be exercised to supplant statutory provision under UP Reservation Act, 1994. In exercise of power under Article 142 of Constitution of India, no direction can be issued to the State of UP to issue appointment orders to 906 candidates.

Result : Appeals allowed