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

2025 Supreme(All) 3727

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, AJIT KUMAR, VIKAS BUDHWAR, JJ.
Satya Prakash Yadav and others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others – Respondents
Special Appeal No. 1236 of 2019, Special Appeal Defective No. 972 of 2020, Special Appeal No. 386 of 2021, WRIT A. No. 2811 of 2019, WRIT A. No. 1012 of 2024, WRIT A. No. 12948 of 2019, WRIT A. No. 14767 of 2019, WRIT A. No. 15097 of 2019, WRIT A. No. 7416 of 2020, WRIT A. No. 3233 of 2020, WRIT A. No. 21314 of 2019, WRIT A. No. 5508 of 2022, WRIT A. No. 18365 of 2022, WRIT A. No. 9263 of 2020, WRIT A. No. 9713 of 2019, WRIT A. No. 15480 of 2019, WRIT A. No. 10996 of 2019, WRIT A. No. 8712 of 2019, WRIT A. No. 2392 of 2024, WRIT A. No. 19218 of 2019 
Decided On : 18-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Shri Ashok Khare, Shri U.K. Saxena, learned Senior Advocates, along with Shri Navin Kumar Sharma and Shri Umang Srivastav.
For the UP Public Service Commission :Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, along with Shri A.K. Goyal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Shri Chandan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Avneesh Tripathi.

The court upheld the principle that recruitment vacancies must be determined based solely on existing vacancies for the recruitment year, excluding anticipated future vacancies per statutory rules.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group 'B') Service Rule, 2007 - Rule 3(l) and Rule 14 - Recruitment process for Assistant Engineers - Controversy over reduction of vacancies from 640 to 394 - Court favored inclusion of only current vacancies during recruitment year, not future anticipated ones - Holding such a reduction without justification violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Paras 22, 32-33, 63)

(B) Legal principles regarding determination of vacancies by State and its prerogative accepted - Court emphasized on adherence to statutory rules over executive instructions. (Paras 40-41, 62)

(C) Discrimination argument rejected; wrong decisions in one area do not justify similar errors in another, affirming that equality does not stem from illegalities. (Paras 54-55)

Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged a decision reducing the vacancies post-advertisement from 640 to 394 for Assistant Engineer positions, citing violations of the statutory recruitment rules and government orders prescribing inclusion of future vacancies.

Findings of Court:
Court held that only vacancies that occurred during the recruitment year could be considered, thus the reduction was justified legally.

Issues: The case primarily revolved around the legality of reducing advertised posts and the implications of statutory rules versus executive orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the executive cannot amend statutory rules through administrative instructions and affirmed that the decision to limit recruitment vacancies was not arbitrary, as it was based on proper statutory foundations.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. A Division Bench, having noticed divergent views expressed by an earlier Division Bench and a Single Judge Bench on the same controversy, passed the following order on 03.02.2025:

"1. The special appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 06.11.2019 dismissing the writ petition of the appellants. The petitioners had challenged a communication sent by the office of Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department of the State U.P. dated 21.06.2018 addressed to the State Government, whereby recommendation was made to fill up only 394 post falling vacant in the recruitment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 through the State Engineering Services Recruitment Examination, 2014. The main ground of challenge was that the advertisement was issued on 24.11.2013 for filling up 640 posts and after issuance of advertisement, the vacancies could not have been reduced and that it was permissible to include future vacancies of next three recruitment years. Before the learned Single Judge, reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment in Writ (S.B.) No. 1596 of 2016 where the Division Bench declined to accept challenge to the requisition dated 07.11.2013 by the Secretary, Irrigation Department, to the U.P. Public Service Commission informing the Commission of the vacancies against which recruitment was to be held. It also included the future vacancies of recruitment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The learned Single Judge held that in accordance with Rules of 1993, the selection could be held only for the vacancies occurring in the recruitment year and future vacancies could not be included. It has been held that in case future vacancies are also included, the persons who would acquire eligibility in the subsequent recruitment years would stand excluded from the selection process and this would result in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In other words, the view taken by the Division Bench in respect of the same selection has not been followed for the reasons stated in the judgment.

2. This Division Bench is therefore, having one judgment, which takes a view in favour of inclusion of future vacancies and a judgment of learned Single Judge taking a contrary view. The said judgment as noted above duly takes notice of the Division bench judgment.

3. We are of the opinion that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the controversy should be settled by a larger Bench.

4. Accordingly, we direct the office to place the record of the instant case along with all connected matters before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders."

2. Pursuant thereto, the present batch of intra court appeals and connected petitions have been placed before us, by order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Facts :

3. Broadly stated, the facts are that the State of Uttar Pradesh (in short 'State') in order to fill up the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Irrigation Department sent a requisition on 06.07.2012 to the U.P. Public Service Commission (in short 'Commission') for 262 vacancies for the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) for the recruitment year 2011-12. In continuation of the same, another requisition was sent by the Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to the Commission on 07.11.2013 for 378 posts for the vacancies pertaining to the recruitment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 (121+86+79+92). Thereafter, an advertisement No. A-8/-E-1/2013 dated 24-12-2013 was issued by the Commission notifying a Combined Recruitment of Assistant Engineer (Civil, Mechanical, Agriculture) for several departments of the State Government, including the Irrigation Department. The total number of vacancies advertised for Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Irrigation Department was 640 (262+378). The last date for submission of applications was 24-01-2014.

4. According to the State, an error occurred in the calculation of the vacancies of the Irrigation Department, while sending requisition to the Commission. The tota

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