Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
Kamal Nayan Singh and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 5390 of 2022
Decided On : 05-12-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 309 – Uttar Pradesh Technical Education (Teaching) Service Rules, 2021 – Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission – Source of recruitment – Civil Appeal – Physical Training Instructor – Present writ petition has been filed primarily to seek a direction upon respondent no. 2- Director, Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh to grant appointment to petitioners (13), pursuant to select list published by Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission pursuant to Advertisement No. 22-Examination/2016 – Held, It is for State Government to act in manner permitted by law and it is not for State Government to either shift that responsibility to UPSSSC or to look to Court in that regard – Administrative decisions are to be taken by authorized authorities. Often, they offer limited scope for interference in judicial review – However, while taking that decision, in present facts, amongst others, State Government would have to remain mindful of purpose of that exercise; context in law; timing of action as also, consequences of its action – It would also have to weigh the pros and cons of its decision and its impact on its citizens involved – Here, it may also be kept in mind, there is no allegation of foul play in selection process, that is otherwise complete – Though State Government has a Constitutionally recognized right to declare whole result still born, yet it may remain mindful of fact that that result may arise (in facts of present case), by way of consequence of its own conduct – That unfortunate result would arise neither by way of operation of law nor any fundamental defect in the selection process – Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Neha Roy Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission/respondent no. 3; Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission/respondent no. 4 and Sri Gopal Chandra Saxena, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Present writ petition has been filed primarily to seek a direction upon respondent no. 2- Director, Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh to grant appointment to the petitioners (13), pursuant to the select list 10.12.2021 published by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPSSSC’) pursuant to Advertisement No. 22-Examination/2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Advertisement’). The other prayer made in the writ petition against Advertisement No. A-7/E-1/2021 dated 15.09.2021, is largely consequential. The petitioners seek protection of their rights under select list dated 10.12.2021 published pursuant to the Advertisement - qua 69 posts of Librarian, Grade C, advertised thereunder.
3. Earlier, the UPSSSC published the Advertisement. Amongst others, 69 posts of Librarian, Grade C, at Government Polytechnics, in Grade Pay 2800/-, were advertised (hereinafter referred to as the advertised posts). The prescribed qualification for appointment on those posts (as then existed), was graduation with diploma in Library Science. The cut-off date prescribed under the above advertisement was 19.12.2016. The petitioners had applied thereunder.
4. While that selection process was underway, the All-India Council for Technical Education (‘AICTE’ in short), came out with “All India Council for Technical Education Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff such as Library, Physical Education and Training and Placement Personnel in Technical Institutions and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Technical Education - (Degree) Regulation, 2019” vide Notification dated 01.03.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Notification’) proposing to amend, the eligibility conditions, pay-band as also the nomenclature etc. of advertised posts, amongst others pertaining to Librarian, applied for by the petitioners. Mainly, that post was proposed to be upgraded from Group C to Group B, from Grade Pay Rs. 2,800/- to pay scale Rs. 56,100/-. At the same time, under Clause 1.4 of the Notification, it was provided as under:
(a) All other service conditions including Qualifications, Experience, Recruitment, Promotions etc. shall come into force with effect from the date of this Gazette Notification.
(b) The Qualifications, Experience, Recruitment and Promotions etc. during 01-01-2016 till the issue of this Gazette Notification shall be governed by All India Council for Technical Education Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Diploma) Regulation, 2010 dated 5th March 2010 and subsequent notifications issued from time to time.
(c) Those who are eligible for promotions after the date of publication of this gazette, shall have to meet the necessary conditions such as additional qualification, undergoing industrial training, pedagogical training, faculty induction program, publishing research papers etc. However, these requirements shall be permitted to be fulfilled till 31st July, 2022 so as to enable faculty members in equipping them for requisite mandatory requirements of this gazette to avail the benefit of promotion retrospectively from the date of eligibility.
(d) It may be noted that no further extension would be given beyond 31st July, 2022 and those who do not meet the essential criteria despite the above grace period, shall lose an opportunity for gettin
Point of Law : Selecting body does not have its right to alter the procedure for selection than what is prescribed under the relevant Service Rules, 2014 and Recruitment Rules, 2017.
Widening the field of eligibility, in view of an amendment in the Recruitment Rules, does not amount to changing the rules of the game in the midst of the selection process.
Important Point – Appointment – Introducing new requirements into selection process after entire selection process was completed amounted to changing rules of game after game was played which is not ....
Candidates participating in a recruitment process do not have a legal right to appointment if the selection process is found to be flawed and thus invalid.
The approval of maximum marks of the interview by the Government subsequent to the selection fulfilled the condition of Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2015, and the selection was held in accordance with t....
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.
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
