The State's authority to cancel a selection process can be judicially reviewed on the touchstone of reasonableness, and the cancellation must be based on relevant factors and not mala-fide or arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants in this batch of intra-Court Appeals filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court have questioned the judgment and order dated 22.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby certain writ petitions were dismissed and certain others have been disposed of with direction to the State-authorities for consideration of such writ petitioners for promotion to the post of Senior Clerk/Assistant Treasury Accountant in terms of the statutory Rules as amended from time to time.

2. The appellants of Special Appeal No. 264 of 2021, 266 of 2021, 279 of 2021, 290 of 2021, 291 of 2021 and 307 of 2021 have questioned the judgment and order dated 22.06.2021, whereas the appellants of Special Appeal No. 350 of 2021 have questioned the judgment and order 02.09.2021 which follows the judgment and order dated 22.06.2021.

3. Having regard to the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay in Special Appeal Defective No. 307 of 2021, we are satisfied that the delay has satisfactorily been explained. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the Special Appeal is hereby condoned. Special Appeal No. 291 of 2021 has been filed in time, whereas the delay in rest of Special Appeal Nos. 264 of 2021, 266 of 2021, 279 of 2021, 290 of 2021 and 350 of 2021 has been condoned earlier by this Court.

4. Heard Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate who led the arguments on behalf of the appellants alongwith Sri Kazim Ibrahim, Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Sri Anubhav Awasthi, Sri Ritesh Ranjan Chaubey, Sri Gopal Pandey, Sri Avinash Tripathi, Sri Agendra Sinha and Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel representing the appellants and Sri Amitabh Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State-authorities. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel representing the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission has also been heard.

5. We have also perused the records available before us on these Special Appeals.

6. Before adverting to the rival submissions made by learned Counsel representing the respective parties, we find it appropriate to note certain facts which are essential for appropriate adjudication of the issues involved in this case.

7. The Uttar Pradesh Treasuries Ministerial Establishment is a Subordinate Ministerial Service comprising Group ‘C’ posts. For governing the conditions of service of the members of the said service, the State of U.P. has framed Rules under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India which are known as U.P. Treasuries Ministerial Service Rules, 1978 [here-in-after referred to as ‘the 1978 Rules’]. Strength of service of each category of posts as per Rule 4 (1) is to be determined by the Governor from time to time and as per Rule 4 (2) strength of service of each category of posts shall, until orders varying the same are passed, shall be as given in the Appendix appended to the said Rules. Proviso appended to Rule 4 (2) provides that the appointing authority may leave unfilled or the Governor may hold in abeyance any vacant post, without thereby entitling any person to compensation. The second proviso appended to provides that the Governor may create such additional permanent or temporary posts as he may consider proper.

8. When the 1978 Rules were framed on 29.08.1978, the Appendix ‘A’ appended to the 1978 Rules contained four posts, namely (1) Treasury Head Clerk/Additional Treasury Head Clerk, (2) Assistant Treasury Head Clerk, (3) Senior Grade Clerk and (4) Routine Grade Clerk. The Appendix also contained the sanctioned strength of the aforesaid posts of service.

9. Rule 5 of the 1978 Rules provides for the source of recruitment according to which certain posts in the service are to be filled in by the direct recruitment and certain other posts are to be filled in by promotion. Rule 15 of the 1978 Rules provides the procedure for direct recruitment, whereas Rule 16 of the 1978 Rules provides the procedure for recruit