Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Honourable Judges: S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal JJ.
UTTAR PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ALLAHABAD - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Special Appeal 130 Of 2003
Decided On : 03/08/2007
G. O. - Recruitment Dispute - G. O. dated 31. 1. 1994 - Summary of Acts and Sections: G. O. dated 31. 1. 1994 - The judgment discusses the interpretation and effect of the G. O. dated 31. 1. 1994, which governs the appointment process for candidates from the waiting list. The court examines the validity and application of the G. O. and its impact on the appointment of candidates from the waiting list in the context of unfilled vacancies.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-respondent challenged the non-selection in the final result of a recruitment process and sought a writ of mandamus to recommend additional candidates from the waiting list for appointment to specific posts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner-respondent had no right to seek a writ of mandamus for additional recommendations from the waiting list, as the waiting list had expired as per the G. O. dated 31. 1. 1994. The court also held that the State Government was not obligated to make such appointments, as the petitioner-respondent had no indefeasible right.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation and application of the G. O. dated 31. 1. 1994 in the context of recommending candidates from the waiting list for appointment to unfilled vacancies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a wait list candidate does not have an indefeasible right to claim appointment and that the G. O. dated 31. 1. 1994 governs the appointment process for candidates from the waiting list. The court also emphasized that the State Government is not obligated to make appointments from the waiting list unless substantiated by a statutory provision.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the Honble Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition, ruling in favor of the appellants. The petitioner-respondent was not entitled to any relief, and costs were awarded to the appellants.
( 1 ) 1. This intra Court appeal under the Rules of the Court arises from the judgment of the Honble Single Judge dated 24. 1. 2003 allowing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38337 of 2000 of the petitioner-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner ).
( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, are that the U. P. Public Service Commission, allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the "commission") published an advertisement dated 1. 1. 1998 for recruitment to Combined State/upper subordinate Services Examination, 1998 consisting of 13 services, namely, dy. Collector, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Assistant Regional Transport officer, Trade Tax Officer, Additional District Development Officer, assistant District Inspector of Schools/basic Shiksha Adhikari and equivalent post, Treasury Officer/account Officer, Executive Officer gr. I/assistant Nagar Vikas Adhikari, District Social Welfare Officer, district Audit Officer, District Saving Officer, Assistant Accounts officer, Dy. Regional Marketing Officer and Trade Tax Officer-Grade-II. The preliminary examination was held on 24. 5. 1998. The petitioner qualified the same and thereafter appeared in the Main Examination consisting of written test as well as interview and the final result thereof was declared on 24. 12. 1998. The petitioner was not shown selected in the final result since the last candidate selected in General Category secured 1020 marks while the petitioner has secured 1017 marks only. The commission sent its recommendations on 30. 3. 1999 to the State Government for appointment. Thereafter, the respective authorities issued letters of appointment to the selected candidates.
( 3 ) IT appears when some candidates selected for different posts did not join, the State Government sent a letter dated 2. 5. 2000 to the Commission informing names of such seven candidates and requested to send seven more names from the waiting list. The Commission accordingly sent its recommendation dated 24. 7. 2000 forwarding seven more names from the waiting list and it appears that the said candidates thereafter were offered appointment to the respective services.
( 4 ) THE petitioner filed the present writ petition on 28. 8. 2000 whereupon this court on 29. 8. 2000 directed the respondents to file counter affidavit. After exchange of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of the U. P. as well as the Commission and the rejoinder affidavit, the writ petition was heard and finally allowed by the Honble Single Judge vide judgment under appeal directing the Commission to recommend four more candidates in their respective category for appointment to the post of treasury Officer/accounts Officer and one candidate for the post of Deputy regional Marketing Officer from out of the select list, i. e. , waiting list, in order of seniority within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order and the State Government was directed to issue appointment order within four weeks thereafter.
( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid judgment the Commission has come up in this appeal.
( 6 ) SRI M. A. Qadeer, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Commission contended that in view of Government Order (hereinafter referred to as the g. O.) dated 31. 1. 1994, life of the select list was only one year. Since result was declared on 24. 12. 1998 and recommendation was made on 30. 3. 1999, therefore, no recommendation could have been made by the commission, pursuant to the aforesaid selection after expiry of one year from 24. 12. 1998 or in any case from 30. 3. 1999. He further contended that in any case a candidate in a waiting list has no indefeasible right of appointment and, therefore, a writ of mandamus commanding Commission to recommend names from the wait list to the Government and a further mandamus for their appointment would not lie. Placing reliance on a division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3447 of 2002 (Arun Kumar Singh
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
