SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
The State Of Uttar Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Karunesh Kumar & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8822-8823 of 2022 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10386-10387 of 2020]
Decided On : 12-12-2022
(A) Service Law – Appointment – Post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari – A candidate who has participated in selection process adopted under 2015 Rules is estopped and has acquiesced himself from questioning it thereafter – An employer shall always have adequate discretion with an element of flexibility in selecting an employee – Interference can only be made when a selection is arbitrary or contrary to law which is not the case in present matter – Selection of an individual to a post cannot be interpreted to mean a particular category of post or a single cadre post – Exercise done in selecting a suitable candidate shall not go waste if that person is not actually selected for any reason in which case next in line would get in – Otherwise, entire process would go to waste, making recruiting agency to redo it all over for a single post – There is no vested right of unsuccessful candidate to insist upon their consideration, in absence of any such rule requiring for preparation of a waiting-list – Impugned judgments set aside and order passed by Single Judge restored. [Rule 15 of Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Adhikari Service Rules, 1978; Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission Act, 2014 – Section 15; Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment to Group ‘C’ Posts (Mode and Procedure) Rules, 2015 – Rule 8(2)]. (Paras 21, 25, 28, 30 and 34)
(B) Service Law – Selection – Principle governing changing rules of game would not have any application when change is with respect to selection process but not qualification or eligibility – After advertisement is made followed by an application by a candidate with further progress, a rule cannot be brought in, disqualifying him to participate in selection process – It is only in such cases, the principle will have application or else it will hamper power of employer to recruit a person suitable for a job. (Para 32)
(C) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Scope and ambit – In a proceeding initiated under Article 226 of Constitution of India, scope of review has to be looked at differently, facilitating an enlarged view. (Para 33)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals are filed by State of Uttar Pradesh contending that candidates who are not part of list forwarded by Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission were also directed to be considered in the vacancies arising pursuant to the selected candidates approved by the appointing authority, not taking up the jobs offered to the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Single Cadre, Group (C). Single Judge dismissed Writ Petition filed by private Respondents, which was overturned by Division Bench on the premise that Rule 15 of Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Adhikari Service Rules, 1978, if given due interpretation, would facilitate consideration of persons waiting in the queue based upon their performance.
Findings of Court:
Impugned decisions are made without considering the appropriate provisions despite an endeavour being made drawing its attention to the same. High Court did not take note of the grounds raised in the Review Petition.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.M. SUNDRESH, J.
1. The decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in allowing the writ petition filed by the private Respondents, setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge is assailed before us. Candidates who waited in the wings, observing the legal journey, filed applications for impleadment seeking extended benefit of the impugned Judgment and Order.
2. The present appeals are filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh inter alia contending that the candidates who are not part of the list forwarded by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) were also directed to be considered in the vacancies arising pursuant to the selected candidates approved by the appointing authority, not taking up the jobs offered to the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Single Cadre, Group (C). The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the private Respondents, which was overturned by the Division Bench on the premise that Rule 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Adhikari Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “1978 Rules”), if given due interpretation, would facilitate consideration of persons waiting in the queue based upon their performance. An application for review was filed by the appellant inter alia stating that the relevant rule to be applied is the Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment to Group ‘C’ Posts (Mode and Procedure) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “2015 Rules”). The said application was dismissed without taking note of the aforesaid contentions. The State seeks to assail both the aforesaid orders in the present proceedings.
3. Heard Ms. Ruchira Goel, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned senior counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. M.R. Shamshad for the Respondent No. 4.
ON FACTS:
4. An advertisement was made for the purpose of filling up of 3587 Group ‘C’ Posts of Gram Panchayat Adhikari on 22.06.2015. The selection process was completed in accordance with the 2015 Rules, by duly conducting a written examination followed by an interview. By way of abundant caution, though not necessitated, the 1978 Rules were also amended on 22.11.2016. The final result was declared on 24.12.2016 and appointment letters were issued during the months of April and May, 2017. During the pendency of the writ petition, the process for the next selection was commenced by taking note of the carry-forward vacancies. At that point of time, the impugned orders were passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad.
5. The private respondents and the impleading applicants willingly took part in the selection process. Obviously, they were not disqualified but along with others made to go through the recruitment process of written examination and the interview. It is to their misfortune that they did not find a place in the list sent by the Commission to the appointing authority. Though, the entire process was done in tune with the 2015 Rules and in exercise of the power conferred under the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “2014 Act”), the reliance was made on the 1978 Rules which has found favour with the High Court.
RELEVANT RULES:
6. We shall first consider all the relevant rules and definitions, with specific reference to the provisions governing the recruitment process, to have a correct understanding of the issue involved.
A. Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Adhikari Service Rules, 1978:
7. These rules exclusively dealt with the appointment to the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, introduced by the powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It has undergone amendment in the year 1989. We are concerned with two amendments by which the earlier Group ‘D’ posts were converted into Group ‘C’ posts, with the change in the constitution of the committee. The first amendment is to th
Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 127 – Relied [Para 16]
Mohan Karan v. State of U.P. (1998) 3 SCC 444 – Referred [Para 16]
Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1997) 8 SCC 488 – Referred [Para 16]
Anupal Singh v. State of U.P. (2020) 2 SCC 173 – Relied [Para 16]
Union of India v. G.R. Prabhavalkar (1973) 4 SCC 183 – Referred [Para 16]
S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala (2009) 2 SCC 479 – Referred [Para 16]
Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala (2010) 4 SCC 498 – Referred [Para 19]
V. K. Girija v. Reshma Parayil (2019) 2 SCC 347 – Referred [Para 19]
Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat (2020) 4 SCC 702 – Referred [Para 19]
K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512 – Distinguished [Para 19]
Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. v. South East Central Railway & Others (2019) 12 SCC 798
Union of India v. N. Murugesan (2022) 2 SCC 25 – Relied [Para 19]
Vallampati Sathish Babu v. State of A.P. (Civil Appeal No. 2473 of 2022) – Relied [Para 30]
(1) Appointment – An employer shall always have adequate discretion with an element of flexibility in selecting an employee – Interference can only be made when a selection is arbitrary or contrary t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the action of the respondents in not preparing a waiting list in compliance with Rule 15(3) of Rules 1992 was arbitrary and against the spirit....
Post of Senior Clerk/Assistant Treasury Accountant Qualifications - It is settled law that there is no legal right vested in candidates to be selected for appointment - Selected candidates have only ....
Candidates participating in recruitment without protest cannot challenge undisclosed skill test criteria post-failure; uniform application negates arbitrariness; no right to relaxation or appointment....
Candidates do not have a vested right to insist on the completion of a recruitment process if it is cancelled based on valid reasons, including changes in qualifications and reservation policies.
Sub-clause (vi) of Rule 277A of Rules of 1996 read as Authorized Agency shall prepare category wise select list of candidates declared successful on basis of criteria of selection laid down.
Selected candidates do not have an indefeasible right to be appointed, and executive instructions cannot override statutory rules.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.