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

2022 Supreme(SC) 1237

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant(s) Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Priya Maurya, Adv. Ms. Leelawati Suman, Adv. Mr. Dharampal Saini, Adv. Mr. Uday Prakash Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vishal Thakre, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Tota Ram, Adv. Mr. S.N. Raja, Adv. Mr. Gautam Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR Mr. V.K. Shukla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, AOR Mr. Ishaan Tiwari, Adv. Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR Mr. Arijit Sarkar, Adv. Ms. Nabeela Jamil, Adv. Mr. Sadashiv, AOR Mr. Raunak Parekh, Adv. Mr. P.V. Singh, Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Amit Wadhwa, Adv. Mr. Jetendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Vijendra Kumar Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Kalpana Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Mr. Varun Punia, AOR Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR Mr. Varun Singh, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mrinal Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Nazish Fatima, Adv. Ms. Savita Dhanda, Adv. Mr. D.D. Verma, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kr. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv. Mr. Suyash Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Shreya Mishra, Adv. Ms. Sumita Banu, Adv. Mr. Parvez Alam, Adv. Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, AOR Mr. Neeraj Aarora, AOR Mr. V.K. Subhramanian, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Yamini Sharma, Adv. Mr. Narendra Pal Sharma, Adv. Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, AOR Mr. Kaushal Yadav, AOR Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Maurya, Adv. Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ram Kishor Singh Yadav, Adv. Dr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Adv. Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sushant Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prithvi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Lomes, Adv. Mr. Ankur Yadav, AOR Mr. Nitin Singh, Adv. Mr. Kuldeep Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 to law which is not the case in present matter.
(2) 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.
(3) In a proceeding initiated under Article 226 of Constitution of India, scope of review has to be looked at differently, facilitating an enlarged view.

Headnote:

(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


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