Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vs Surendra Kumar & Ors

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11149 OF 2018 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.27778 of 2018]

Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission ... Appellant

Versus

Surendra Kumar & Ors. ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

1. We have heard Sh. Rajiv Yadav, learned counsel for

appellant and Sh. Alok Singh, learned counsel for

respondents.

2. This appeal is filed by the Uttar Pradesh Public

Service Commission, aggrieved by the judgment and order

dated 18.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in

Writ Petition No.10180 of 2014. Necessary facts in brief,

for disposal of this appeal are as under:

Signature Not Verified 3. Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR Date: 2018.11.22

U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission had 14:09:25 IST Reason:

initiated the process for selection of 178 posts of Sub

1 C.A.No.11149/18

Deputy Inspector of Schools. The said Commission advertised

by issuing advertisement dated 04.08.2006 in various

newspapers for selecting the candidates.

4. After initiating the process of selection, U.P.

Subordinate Service Selection Commision was dissolved by the

order of the State Government, and the said process was

entrusted to the appellant, U.P. Public Service Commission.

After completing the selection process, the results were

declared on 06.05.2010 and recommendations were made by the

appellant Commission to State Government in respect of

selected candidates by various letters in following manner:

Sl. Date Letter No. No. of No. Posts 1. 12-8-2010 26/3/E-3/2007-2008 0156 2. 9-5-2011 26/3/E-3/2007-2008 08 3. 4-5-2012 26/3/E-3/2007-2008 011 4. 28-8-2012 26/11/E-3/2007-2008 01

5. Altogether recommendations were made to fill up 176

vacancies. As evident from the counter affidavit, filed

before the High Court, two posts were not filled, in view of

directions issued by the High Court in Writ Petition

2 C.A.No.11149/18

No.32960 of 2010. After receipt of recommendation for 176

candidates, the State Government issued appointment letters

to them, but 7 out of them did not join. Therefore, their

candidature was cancelled by order dated 18.04.2013.

6. By letter dated 30.04.2013, Director of Education

(Basic), requested the appellant-Commission to send the

names of 7 candidates in order of merit for appointment.

The said request has been turned down by the appellant-

Commission vide letter dated 23.07.2013, stating that

recommendation was mainly forwarded by the Commission on

12.08.2010 and the wait-list is to be operated within a

period of one year, and the request for 7 more persons has

been sent after 2 years 11 months.

7. Referring to G.Os dated 29.08.1992, 31.01.1994 and

15.11.1999, it is stated that wait-list can be operated only

for a period of one year and as the said period is expired,

therefore, request from the Director of Education (Basic)

for sending 7 more names was not accepted.

8. The first respondent herein, has filed Writ Petition

before the High Court of Allahabad, for quashing of the

communication dated 23.07.2013 issued by the appellant-

3 C.A.No.11149/18

Commission with a further direction to the appellant to

forward additional names from the wait-list prepared for the

post of Sub Deputy Inspector of Schools.

9. The High Court, by judgment and order dated

18.05.2018, allowed the Writ Petition by quashing the

communication dated 23.07.2013 and issued further direction

to send the names of requisite number of candidates to

Director of Education (Basic).

10. In this appeal, it is the case of the appellant-

Commission that, for substantial number of vacancies

recommendations were made vide letter dated 12.08.2010 and

the life of wait-list is only one year, and such period has

to be computed from the initial recommendation dated

12.08.2010. It is contended that High Court has committed

error by computing the period of one year from the last

recommendation made, vide letter dated 28.08.2012.

11. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned

counsel Sh. Alok Singh, appearing for the

respondent/original petitioner that the requisition was made

for making selections for 178 number of posts and in the

recommendation made vide letter dated 12.08.2010 only 156

4 C.A.No.11149/18

names are recommended and thereafter further recommendations

were made. As such, the period of one year is to be

computed from the last recommendation but not from

12.08.2010. In support of his case, learned counsel also

relied on judgment of this Court dated 16.02.2004 rendered

in C.A. No.1035 of 2004 (Sheo Shyam and Ors. Vs. State of

U.P. and Ors.).

12. Having heard the learned counsels on both sides, we

have perused the order dated 18.05.2018 passed by the High

Court and other material placed on record. For the purpose

of operating wait-list, Government of Uttar Pradesh has

issued instructions from time to time. It is clear from the

various Government Orders that wait-list period is valid

only for a period of one year. Though requisition is made

for making selection for 178 number of posts, but appellant-

Commission, after delcaring results of the examination, has

made initial recommendation for substantive number of posts,

i.e., 156 posts vide letter dated 12.08.2010. It appears

that the said list is prepared by including candidates who

have submitted all the requisite documents within the period

prescribed. Further recommendations were also made, but

5 C.A.No.11149/18

there is no reason for not computing the period of one year

from 12.08.2010. When recommendations were made for

substantive number of posts on 12.08.2010, we are of the

view that period of one year for operating wait-list is to

be computed from 12.08.2010 but not from the last

recommendation made for one post, vide letter dated

28.08.2012. The reason for restricting 156 names in the

initial recommendation vide letter dated 12.08.2010, is

explained in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed

before the High Court.

13. We have also perused the judgment of this Court in

Civil Appeal No.1035 of 2004 dated 16.02.2004, relied on by

the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 but same would

not render any assistance in support of his case having

regard to fact situation in the said case. Office

Memorandum dated 14.01.1999 which was interpreted, was

categorical to the effect that period of one year is to be

reckoned from last date of taking names from the waiting

list. As such, it cannot be applied to the facts of the

case at hand.

6 C.A.No.11149/18

14. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed.

Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 18.05.2018 passed

by the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No.10180 of

2014 is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.

.................... J.

[Uday Umesh Lalit]

.................... J.

[R. Subhash Reddy] New Delhi November 22, 2018

7