The court upheld the authority of the State to adjust recruitment vacancies, emphasizing the proper application of statutory rules regarding 'year of recruitment' and ensuring adherence to constitutional principles of equality.

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 Departme