http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 5

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 1433 of 2006

PETITIONER:

State of U.P. & Ors

RESPONDENT:

Rajkumar Sharma & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/03/2006

BENCH:

ARIJIT PASAYAT & TARUN CHATTERJEE

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1433 OF 2006

(Arising out of S.L.P (C) No. 5296 of 2005)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division

Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal. This is

practically the second journey of the parties to this Court. Earlier in

State of Uttaranchal and Ors. v. Sidharth Srivastava and Ors. (2003 (9)

SCC 336) connected issues were considered.

The factual background in a nutshell is as follows:-

Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (in short ’UPPSC’)

published advertisement inviting applications for 544 posts of J.E.

Civil/Technical (507 Civil + 37 Technical). The result of selection was

published on 7-1-2000. The UPPSC sent its recommendations to the U.P.

Government on 30-10-2000. The U.P. Government forwarded the

recommendations on 31-10-2000 to the Chief Engineer’s Office, Hill

Cadre, Almora. The separate State of Uttaranchal came into existence on

9-11-2000. U.P. Government forwarded the UPPSC recommendations in

respect of posts in Hill Cadre to the Government of Uttaranchal. On 29-

8-2001, Government of Uttaranchal issued the order not to appoint the

selected candidates mentioning two reasons that - (1) the new

reservation policy of the State of Uttaranchal is different from that of U.P.

and (2) practical and legal difficulties "in such a situation" in giving

appointments to the candidates recommended by the UPPSC. The

selected candidates, aggrieved by the same, filed a batch of writ petitions

assailing the said order, impleading State of Uttaranchal and its officers,

State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers and UPPSC. A Division Bench of

the High Court, by a common judgment allowed the writ petitions and

issued direction to the State of Uttaranchal to give appointments to the

writ petitioners. The High Court took the view that the recommendations

made by the UPPSC of the erstwhile State of U.P. were binding on new

State of Uttaranchal. High Court’s judgment was assailed before this

Court by the State of Uttaranchal.

After noticing various provisions contained in Articles 320 and

323(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the ’Constitution’), as

well as Section 178 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 it was held that

the decision of the High Court was not correct. It was, inter alia,

observed as follows:

"27. The High Court misread the Government order

dated 29-8-2001 and drew wrong inference in saying

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 5

that the Government of Uttaranchal denied acceptance

of the recommendations but did not say that no

appointment shall be given on the basis of the

recommendations of UPPSC. If the Government of

Uttaranchal has denied to accept the

recommendations of UPPSC, essentially it follows that

no appointment could be given. This apart in the very

order in paragraph 2 it is specifically stated that

"therefore, in this regard after thorough consideration

it has been decided that the candidates recommended

by the UPPSC may not be appointed in various

Departments of the Government of Uttaranchal." Thus,

the reason given by the High Court that the

Government of Uttaranchal though denied to accept

the recommendations of UPPSC but did not deny to

give appointment and as such the said Government

order could be ignored, does not stand to reason and it

is untenable.

The interpretation placed by the High Court on

S. 78 of the Act is also wrong. Merely because the

recommendations received by the erstwhile State of

Uttar Pradesh had been sent to State of Uttaranchal

and they were not reversed by the Governor for being

plac