Holding

Selectees cannot claim appointment as a matter of right; the select list is valid only for one year and the High Court’s order directing appointments is set aside.

Summary

The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission advertised 544 Junior Engineer posts for the Hill Cadre of the undivided state and published a select list in 2000. After the creation of the new State of Uttaranchal, the Uttar Pradesh Government forwarded the list to Uttaranchal, which refused to appoint the candidates, citing a different reservation policy and practical difficulties. The candidates filed writ petitions; the Allahabad High Court directed Uttaranchal to make the appointments, holding the select list was binding. The Supreme Court, recalling its earlier decision in Sidharth Srivastava, clarified that age‑relaxation is available only when fresh applications are invited and that the select list under Rules 12 and 16 of the UP Public Works Department Subordinate Engineering Service Rules, 1951, is valid for only one year. The Court held that inclusion in the list does not confer a legal right to appointment, that filling vacancies beyond those advertised violates Articles 14 and 16, and that the High Court’s order was erroneous. Consequently, the appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh was allowed and the High Court judgment set aside, with no order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether the select list of candidates for the Hill Cadre is binding on the newly formed State of Uttaranchal and on the State of Uttar Pradesh for appointment.
Whether the candidates have a statutory right to appointment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the High Court erred in presuming the select list remained in force beyond its statutory period.
Whether the State can be compelled to fill vacancies beyond the number advertised.
Whether the three‑year age‑relaxation applies without a fresh selection process.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 320, s. Article 323(2)
Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000s. Section 178, s. Section 78

Subjects

service lawappointmentselection listhill cadreUttar Pradesh ReorganisationArticles 14 and 16public service commissionage relaxationvacancy fillingfundamental rightsstatutory validity

Judgment

)-

. ~
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. A
v.
RAJKUMAR SHARMA AND ORS.

MARCH 3, 2006

[ARIJJT PASA YAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] B

".
') Service Law:

Appointment-Selected candidates-Claiming appointment-Junior
Engineers selected by UPPSC for appointment in the Hill Cadre of undivided c
St'ate of Uttar Pradesh-Meanwhile State of Uttaranchal coming into
existence-State of Uttaranchal declining to appoint the candidates-State
of Uttar Pradesh not giving appointments as posts were meant for Hill cadre,
which on creation of State of Uttaranchal stood abolished-Supreme Court
in-Sidharth Srivastava's case observing that if vacancies arise within three
years and candidates apply, in their case upper age limit may be relaxed-
D
\,
On candidates filing another writ petition, High Court held that as the select
list was in force, the writ petitioners be given the benefits-Held, selectees
cannot claim appointment as a matter ofright-High Court wrongly presumed
that the select list was in force-By virtue of Rules 12 and 16 the select list
is valid only for one year-Relaxation in age was given for a period of three E
years for applicants if applications were invited by respective State Public
Service Commissions-U.P. Public Works Department Subordinate Engineering
Service Rules, 1951-Rules 12 and 16-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles
14,16,320 and 323(2)-U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000-s.178.

... Certain posts of Junior Engineers for the Hill Cadre of undivided F
- \ State of Uttar Pradesh weri! advertised. The UPPSC sent a seleet list to
the State Government of U.P. Meanwhile, State of Uttaranchal Pradesh
came into existence and all the districts earlier comprising the Hill Cadre
came under the State of Uttaranchal. The State Government of U.P.
forwarded the list to the State of Uttaranchal which declined to offer G
appointments. The selected candidates filed writ petitions which were

.--. allowed by the High Court directing the State Government of Uttaranchal
to give appointments to the writ petitioners. On appeal, the Supreme Court
observed that as and when applications were invited for selection either

877 H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) 2 S.C.R.

A by UPPSC or Uttaranchal State P.S.C, and if the writ petitioners apply within
a period of three years, the respective Commission would "consider them for
....
selection subject to their satisfying all the eligibility requirements but relaxing
the upper age limit". Thereafter the writ petitioners approached the State
Government of Uttar Pradesh to appoint them but their requests were turned
down. They again filed another writ petition which was allowed. Aggrieved,
B the State of U.P. filed the present a11peal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Filling up of vacancies over and above the number of
C vacancies advertised would be violative of the fundamental rights granted
under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Selectees cannot claim the
appointment as a matter of right. Mere inclusion of candidates' names in
the list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the
vacancies remained unfilled and the concerned candidates cannot claim
that they have been given a hostile discrimination. Even if in some cases
D appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly that does not confer
any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not
envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot ·
be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. (884-8, D, GI ~

Union of India & Ors. v. lshwar Singh Khalgri & Ors., 119921 Supp. 3
E SCC 84; Gujarat Statge Dv. Executive Engineers' Association v. State of
Gujarat & Ors. (1994) Supp.2 SCC 591; State of Bihar & Ors. v. The
Secretariat Assistant S.E. Union, 1986 & Ors., AIR (1994) SC 736; Prem
Singh & Ors. v. Haryana Stale Electricity Board & Ors., (1996( 4 SCC 319;
Surendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR (1998) SC 18; Kamlesh
F Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta & Ors., AIR (1998) SC 1021;
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, AIR (1991) SC 1612; Smt. Asha Kaul &
Anr. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Anr., (19931 2 SCC 573; Union of i -
India v. S.S. Uppal AIR (1996) SC 2346; Hanman Prasad v. Union of India,
(1996110 SCC 742; Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors. v. State ofBihar
& Ors., AIR (1997) SC 2280; Syndicate Bank & Ors. v. Shankar Paul & Ors.,
G AIR (1997) SC 3091; Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand
Prakash Mishra & Ors., (1997110 SCC 264; Punjab State Electricity Board
v. Seema, (1999) SCC (L&S) 629; All India SC & ST Employees Association
v. A. Arthur Jeen, AIR (2001) SC 1851; Vinodan T. v. University of Kalikut,
[200214 SCC 726; S. Renuka v. State ofAndhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR (2002)
H SC 1523; Baitariani Gramiya Bank v. Pal/ab Kumar & Ors.. AIR (2000) SC
}-

STA TE OF U.P. v. RAJKUMAR SHARMA 879

.. A
4248; Snehprabha v. State ofU.P. & Ors., AIR (1996) SC 540; Secretary, Jaipur A
Development Authority, Jaipur, v. Dau/at Mal Jain & Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 35;
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997) 3 SCC 321; Faridabad
C. T. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 752; Jalandhar
Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh, AIR (1999) SC 1347; State of Punjab
& Ors. v. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal, (1999( 9 SCC 240; Yogesh Kumar & Ors. v. Govt.
of N.C. T. of Delhi & Ors., (2003( 3 SCC 548; Union of India & Anr. v. B
International Trading Co. & Anr., (2003( 5 SCC 437 and Kastha Niwarak
,.. G.S.S. Maryadit, Indore v. President, Indore Development Authority, JT (2006)
2 SC 259, referred to.
'·1

1.2. In the instant case, the High Court, after having correctly
indicated the legal position, has failed to apply the same to the factual
c
scenario in its proper perspective. It wrongly presumed that the select list
was in force. Rules 12 and 16 of .the U.P. Public Works Department
Subordinate Engineering Service Rules, 1951 show that the select list is
valid only for one year. In paragraph 32 of the judgment in Sidharth
Srivastava's* case it was made clear that it was upto the State to take a D
decision as to whether any relief can be granted to the persons who were
\.
selected in respect of the Hill Cadre. All the posts advertised for the plain
}
cadre have been filled up. Therefore, the State has rightly taken the stand
that there was no scope for appointing the writ petitioners. Relaxation was
given for a period of three years for applicants, when applications are
invited for selection by the U.P.P.S.C. or the Uttaranchal State Public
E
Service Commission. Obviously, relaxation is to be granted when fresh
applications are invited. Therefore, the judgments of the Single Judge as
well as Division Bench affirming the same cannot be maintained and are
set aside. (885-B-E)
F
*State of Uttaranchal & Ors. v. Sidharth Srivastava & Ors. (2003( 9
-\ sec 336, referred to..
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1433 of2006.

From the Judgment and Final Order dated 14.10.2004 of the Allahabad ,Q
High Court in Special Appeal No. 268/2004.

·~ --r R.G. Padia, Pradeep Misra and R.K.S. Yadav for the Appellants.

K. Ramamoorthy, Yatish Mohan, Vishwajit Singh and Shail Kumar
~ Dwivedi for the Respondents. H
J'
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

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
B 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:-

C 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
D 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
E 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, imp leading 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
F 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 j -

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.

G 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 a/ia, observed as follows:

"27. The High Court misread the Government order dated 29-8-2001
H and drew wrong inference in saying that the Government of
" '·

STATE OF U.P. v. RAJKUMAR SHARMA (PASAYAT,J.] 881

Uttaranchal denied acceptance of the recommendations but did not A
" "' 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
B
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 c
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 placed with the D
reasons before the Assembly of State of Uttar Pradesh under S. 78 of
'
,t
the Act, it cannot be held that the recommendations made by the
UPPSC were binding on Government of Uttaranchal. In this regard
we have already made the legal position clear. Hence it is unnecessary
to deal with the same any further. In our view, looking to the reasons
recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment, which are E
neither tenable nor acceptable, the impugned judgment cannot be
allowed to stand."

Para 31 of the judgment is also significant as the case of the non-
official respondents had its foundation on the said paragraph which reads as
follows:
F
- \
"31. It was also urged in the alternative that the State of Uttar Pradesh
may be directed to give appointments to the non-official respondents.
This aspect was neither raised before the High Court nor it was

- _,-,
considered, Hence, we do not wish to deal with the same. All that we
can say is that this order shall not come in the way of the State of
Uttar Pradesh, if so advised, to consider the claims of the non-official
respondents for appointments based on the selection made by UPPSC.
G

Having regard to the peculiar situation in which the non-official
respondents are placed, we would like to say that in case the non-
official respondents apply as and when the applications are invited H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.
882
A for selection either by UPPSC or by the Uttaranchai State Public
Service Commission in future within a period of three years, the
UPPSC or the Uttaranchal State Public Service Commission shall
consider them for selection subject to their satisfying all other eligibility
requirements but relaxing the upper age-limit.

B After this Court's judgment, the candidates whose names had been
included in the select list approached the State of Uttar Pradesh to appoint
them. However, their requests were turned down. Challenging order of the
State Government, the writ application was filed which was allowed by learned
Single Judge. The State of Uttar Pradesh and its functionaries filed Letters
C Patent Appeal before the Division Bench which affirmed the order of the
learned Single Judge.

The stand of the appellant-State before the High Court was that
considering the peculiar circumstances the only relief granted by this Court
was relaxation in age for a period of 3 years whenever the selection is held.
D The Uttar Pradesh Hill Sub-cadre Rules, 1992 (in short '1992 Rules') were
enacted for certain hill areas of the State of Uttar Pradesh as it is stood before
the re-organisation, and the Rules were applicable in all districts of hills,
namely, Almora, Chamoli, Dehradun, Nainital, Pauri Garhwal, Pithoragarh,
Tehri Garhwal, Uttarkashi and Udham Singh Nagar. All the said districts
now stand included in the State of Uttaranchal. Therefore, the vacancies
E which were advertised for the hills could not be filled up as the said cadre
stood abolished. Reliance has been placed by the High Court on Office
Memorandums issued on 31.1.1994 and 15.12.1999 which did not have any
application whatsoever.

Stand of the non-official respondent, however, was that the note
F appended to the advertisement made it clear that there was one application
I -
to be made for all the posts in different departments. It was only indicated
that the screening shall be mad1e at the time of final selection regarding
posting in plain or hill areas. It was pointed out that in similar circumstances
those candidates who had not been appointed by the State of Uttaranchal,
G were appointed by of State of U.P. as sub-registrar and Passengers Goods
Officers in the Transport Department. There could not be differential treatment
so far as the writ-petitioners are concerned. No fresh advertisement has been
issued since 1998 though period of more than 6 yeas has lapsed.

The High Court accepted that Hill sub-cadre stood abolished. But held
H that currency of select list had not expired and the vacancies could be filled
,~

STATEOFU.P. v. RAJKUMAR SHARMA [PASAYAT, J.) 883

"(, up. High Court noted that appointments beyond number advertised would A
amount to filling up future vacancies which is impermissible. It also noted that
mere inclusion in the select list did not confer any enforceable right to be
selected even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled. Though it was noted
that even if a mistake has been committed in some .case that cannot be a
ground to perpetuate the mistake, on the logic of negative equality yet this B
is a case, according. to the High Court, which was not based on any mistake.
The select list was operative and its validity had not expired. If the State
Government had given effect to the Office Memorandums while making
appointment in other departments, there could be no justification to deprive
the writ petitioners of some benefit particularly when the select list was in
force and no vacancies had been advertised since 1998. It was held that this C
Court left the matter to be determined by the State Government. The discretion
had not been exercised objectively. Accordingly, the special appeal was
dismissed, upholding similar views expressed by learned Single Judge.

In support of the appeal, Mr. R.G. Padia, learned senior counsel D
appearing for the State of U .P. and its functionaries submitted that the High
\ Court's judgment is unsupportable on more than one counts. First, all the
>' posts which were advertised for the plain areas cadre have been filled up.
After having accepted that the appointments cannot be made beyond the
number of post advertised, should not have directed appointment.
E
The High Court having noticed that even if by mistake some
appointments have been made that cannot confer a right on others, therefore
erroneously held that this was not a case of mistake and/or that the select
list was in force. Even Uttar Pradesh Cadre Rules, 1992 clearly stipulates that
the list was valid only for one year. The High Court erroneously placed
reliance on the Office Memorandum dated 31.1.1994 and 15.12.1999. F
. ;
The Office Memorandums had no application to the facts of the case.
Even otherwise, the Office Memorandums clearly indicated that the select list
is valid only for one year. It is of relevance to note that the U.P. PSC had
prepared two lists one for the plan and the other for the hill cadre. Further, G
in the earlier case at para 23 grievance had been made that Uttranchal
Government had made appointments by picking up some candidates selected
by U.P. PCS. This Court observed that there was no evidence of any malafides
and similar is the position in the case at hand. It is pointed out by Mr. Padia
that only 11 persons in total were appointed in the two departments. Rules
12 and 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department Subordinate H
r
...

884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200612 S.C.R.

A Engineering Rules, 1951 (in short the 'Engineering Rules') substantiate the
stand of learned counsel for the appellants that the select list is valid only for
~ .
one year.

Filling up of vacancies over and above the number of vacancies
advertised would be violative of the fundamental rights granted under Articles
B 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (See: Union of India & Ors. v. lshwar Singh
Khatri & Ors., (1992] Supp 3 SCC 84, Gujrat State Dy. Executive Engineers,
Association v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [ 1994] Supp 2 SCC 591; State of
Bihar & Ors. v. The Secretariat Assistant S.E. Union, (1986) & Ors., AIR • ,,
(1994) SC 736; Prem Singh & Ors. v. Haryana State Electricity Board &
c Ors., (1996] 4 SCC 319; Surendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,
AIR (1998) SC 18, and Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta &
Ors., AIR (1998) SC 1021).
I-

Selectees cannot claim the appointment as a matter of right. Mere
inclusion of candidates' name in the list does not confer any right to be
D selected, even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled and the concerned
candidates cannot claim that they have been given a hostile discrimination.
(See: Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, AIR (1991) SC 1612, Smt. Asha
Kaul and Anr. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Anr., (1993] 2 SCC 573,
Union of India v. S.S. Uppal AIR (1996) SC 2346, Hanman Prasad v. Union
E of India (1996] IO SCC 742, Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors. v.
State of Bihar & Ors., AIR (1997) SC 2280, Syndicate Bank & Ors. v.
Shankar Paul & Ors., AIR (1997) SC 3091, Vice Chancellor. University of
Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra and Ors .. (1997] 10 SCC 264,
Punjab State Electricity Board v. Seema, (1999] SCC (L&S) 629; All India
SC & ST Employees. Association v. A Arthur Jeen, AIR (2001) SC 1851,
F Vinodan T. v. University of Kali/mt, [2002] 4 SCC 726, S. Renuka v. State
of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., AIR (2002) SC 1523, and Baitariani Gramiya j -

Bank v. Pa/lab Kumar & Ors., AIR (2000) SC 4248).

Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or
G wrongly that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the
Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed
the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. (See:
Snehprabha v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR (1996) SC 540, Secretary, Jaipur
Development Authority, Jaipur, v. Dau/at Mal Jain & Ors., (1997] l SCC 35,
State of HaryanaandOrs. v. Ram Kumar Mann [1997] 3 SCC 321, Faridabad
H C.T. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services & Ors., [1997]7 SCC 752, Jalandhar
}-

STATE OF U.P. v. RAJKUMAR SHARMA [PASAYAT, J.] 885
Improvement Trust, v. Sampuran Singh, AIR (1999) SC 1347, State ofPunjab A
and Ors. v. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal [1999] 9 SCC 240, Yogesh Kumar and Ors.
v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi and Ors., [2003] 3 SCC 548, Union of India and Anr.
v. International Trading Co. and Anr., [2003] 5 SCC 437 and Kastha Niwarak
G.S.S. Maryadit, Indore v. President, Indore Development Authority, IT (2006)
2 SC259).
B
In view of the aforesaid, the High Court after having correctly indicated
the "legal position has failed to apply the same to the factual scenario in its
proper perspective. The basic fallacy in the judgment of the learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench is that they proceeded under the presumption
that the select list was in force. The view is clearly wrong. In paragraph 31 C
of the earlier judgment it was made clear that it was upto the State to take
a decision as to whether any relief can be granted to the persons who were
selected in respect of the hill cadre. All the posts advertised for the plain
cadre have been filled up. Therefore, the State has rightly taken the stand that
there was no scope for appointing non-official respondents. Relaxation was
given for a period of three years for applicants, when applications are invited .D
for selection by the UPPSC or the Uttaranchal State Public Service Commission.
Obviously, relaxation is to be granted when fresh applications are invited.
That is not the case here. Therefore, the judgments of the learned Single
Judge as well as Division Bench affirming the same cannot be maintained and
are set aside. The appeal is allowed but without any order as to costs. E
RP. Appeal allowed.

-·
-· '