Page 1

JUDGMENT

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.

9849 OF 2014

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 18639 OF 2012)

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

.....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Leave granted.

2)

This appeal, preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh and its

functionaries, assails the order of the High Court whereby the writ

petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed and the order of the

Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (for short, 'the

Tribunal') passed in favour of the respondents herein, is affirmed.

3)

To mention at the outset, the Tribunal as well as the High Court has

given the respondents herein benefit of the order passed by the Court in

earlier round of litigation filed by similarly situated persons. The

Page 2

JUDGMENT

2

appellants contend that as far as these respondents are concerned,

they never approached the Court seeking such a relief and were only

fence-sitters and, therefore, relief should not have been granted to them

even if they were similarly situated as those persons who have been

granted relief in the petitions filed by them. Respondents, on the other

hand, contend that once it is found that both sets of persons are

identically placed, the impugned orders granting them the same benefit

are in tune with the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 14 of the

Constitution of India.

4)

Such a situation has not occurred for the first time in the present appeal.

There are many decisions of this Court. If outcome alone of those

judgments is seen, one would find that in some cases the Courts have

extended the benefit to the similarly situated persons, whereas, in some

other cases similar benefit is denied to the second set of people who

approached the Court subsequently. However, on delving deep into the

rationale and reasoning of these two sets of cases, one is able to

mentally rexognise the logic behind different outcomes. Under what

circumstances such a benefit can be extended and what are the

reasons for denying the same, shall be discerned after taking note of

those judgments. But, before undertaking that exercise, it would be apt

to take note of the facts of this case in order to understand and

Page 3

JUDGMENT

3

appreciate as to how the respondents are placed.

5)

It was sometime in the year 1986 that the Chief Medical Officer,

Varanasi, had advertised certain posts of Homeopathic Compounder

and Ward Boys in various newspapers. Respondents herein applied for

the said post and participated in the selection process. After the

interviews, they were kept in the waiting list. Those who were in the

select list were offered the appointments. Some of those candidates

who were higher in merit and were offered the appointments did not

join. For this reason, candidates in the waiting list were issued

appointment letters by the then Chief Medical Officer. These included

the respondents herein as well. However, before the respondents could

join their duties, new Chief Medical Officer assumed the charge and

blocked their joining. Thereafter, vide order dated June 22, 1987 he

even cancelled the said appointments made by his predecessor for

these Class-III and Class-IV posts i.e. Homeopathic Compounder and

Ward Boys.

6)

The respondents filed the suit in the Court of City Munsif, Varanasi

challenging the aforesaid orders dated June 22, 1987 cancelling their

appointments by the new Chief Medical Officer. This suit was registered

as Suit No. 695/1987. It appears that this suit could not be taken to its

Page 4

JUDGMENT

4

logical conclusion as same was dismissed for non-prosecution because

of non appearance of the advocate of the respondents. The

respondents herein did not take any further steps in the said suit