Holding

The Public Service Commission was right in refusing to call the respondent for interview; the High Court's directive was not justified.

Summary

The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission advertised for the post of Munsif, requiring candidates to possess a law degree by the application deadline of 20 August 1988. Alpana applied stating she was awaiting her law degree result, which was declared only in October 1988. The Commission allowed her to sit the written exam, which she cleared, but refused to call her for interview because she did not meet the degree requirement on the deadline. She obtained a writ directing the Commission to interview her and, later, to declare her result and create a supernumerary post for her appointment. The Supreme Court held that the Commission was correct in refusing the interview, that the High Court had no authority to compel the interview or appointment absent any rule or practice, and set aside the High Court order. The appeal was allowed, the writ dismissed, and any appointment made under the High Court order would not be cancelled, but no entitlement to appointment exists otherwise.

Issues considered

The eligibility of a candidate who did not possess the required law degree on the prescribed application deadline but later obtained it.
Whether a High Court can direct a Public Service Commission to interview, declare results, and create a supernumerary post in the absence of a specific rule or established practice.
The applicability of equitable considerations to override the Commission's discretion.
The legal effect on any appointment already made pursuant to the High Court's order.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Ruless. 37

Subjects

Service lawPublic Service CommissionRecruitment eligibilityLaw degree requirementInterview refusalSupernumerary postJudicial reviewWrit petition

Judgment

U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, U'ITAR PRADESH, A
ALLAHABAD AND ANR.
v.
ALPANA

JANUARY 17, 1994
B
[A.M. AHMADf AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.)

Service Law :

U.P. Nyayik Sewa--Munsif-Recn.1itment of-Public Service Commis- C
sion-Advertisement-Requirement of possessing Law degree on the last date
fixed for receipt of applicatiom-Application by a candidate not possessing
law degree on the fixed date but awaiting results-Passing law subsequent to
the fixed date-Candidate allowed to appear in written examination but not
called for interview-Directions by High Court to Public Service Commission
to interview, declare results and if successful recommend for appoint- D
ment--Legality of-Righ Court's order held not justified.

The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission issued an advertise·
ment inviting applications for the post of Munsifs. The candidates were
required to possess the Law Degree on the last date fixed for receipt of E
applications which was 20th August, 1988. The respondent, who had ap·
peared in the Law Degree examination, the result whereof had not been
\
declared till August 20, 1988, applied pursuant to the said advertisement
\.
mentioning in the application that she was awaiting her law degree ex·
amination result. She passed the Law Degree examination in October, 1988
and the Public Service Commission allowed her to appear at the written test F
which she successfully cleared. As she was not called for interview, she filed
a writ petition in the High Court and, pursuant to an interim order passed ..
by the High Court, she was interviewed but her result was kept in abeyance.
By its final order, the High Court, rel}ing upon the judgment of this Court
in As/wk Kumar Shanna & Anr. v. Chander Shekher & Anr., (1993) 1 S.L.R. G
379, and two of its earlier Judgments directed the Public Service Commis-
sion to declare her result and, if successful, to forward her name to the
Government for appointment, if necessary, by creating a supernumerary
post. Against the order of the High Court, appeal was filed in this Court.
,, Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, H
• .•f •·:c•. l ' ' ' · · • ' .
131
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 1 S.C.R.

HELD : 1. The Public Service Commission was right in refusing to
call the respondent for interview. {137-B]h

2. The approach of the· High Court<intmandating the Public Service
B 8 Commission to interview the respondent, declare her result and if success-
ful to forwar<P her nahie for' app6intnien'f to. tli~ ·Gov~rftmehf cannot be
supported on any rule or prevalent practice nor can it be supported on --...,,.-
equitable considerations. There was no occasion for the 'High)Cotirt to
interfere mth the refusal of the Public Service Commission to interview
;,:_. \-"\. -..\·n.).t .• t,1 ,ct ~·\ -:,· .,.1 _ ""'•'+--- "1 1
1 ,(/I t.i_ .\ • .-J ··- __ ( ___ • -· • •• ,

h~~·m· ~ll~ a~s~nc~ ~! ~ny spe~lfk r~le ~il ~hat'b_7hal!; N_o rul~ or practice
C • is sllf>Wii:to have' eXiste'd whkli' pe'riniited 'entertainmenfof her'apptietatfon:•l
It;is1difiicult'to' gi;;~r~c'ogriition to'!such,,ait~ apprc>acti·oHhe ittgli Court'1tsi',
that woulCI-1Spen"'up!ii'flo(}d-of litigatioii/tt372A_.nf 1 'u ,,,._ ..1.~ "~ I'f.i •• H:i; j

I; q;, HP~ J ,f\1~'r~f':.1(\~~J. ~ r·· ... < · h ,,· 1...:. 1-~.r.\.. '>1~ \)-., ;:n,\\• 'l""."· • ·~\~tu1J- "'.l\1\, \'n ,,J..'. ·1At
1.. ;1:<Ashok· Kumar•Shaima & 'Anr,\v.-Chander Shekher &Anr.;"(1993)'.11.1
1 --(_
r) S.LR1t379;distingaished; · "' · 1 • ... 1: ·- ' ,_i\,:' ·' -,,,., '·"" ,;• •. r. :1-1 nl
\J.,1.'~~I .. ,~J.' ! \"\.\~:...1") t\\~.~· •.
1

:· Jr'! '·'t.1 ... l \ -\\l ",.... $\f\'\.J._\--,~~\·~1\,
[However, this C~urt observed that if. the r~spondent bas been
appointeddn. obedience•to the High.C(jUrt's 'order.-her·appointmerit ·shall
not be.,ca"ncelled;• but 'if:$he !h/1i'ot 'appoirited' she Will iiQt be erttitled to ·
1
appointment.]. '.J'.!. :, ;.i!c.ll ;,.; 1 · •i; '·"' .·r _,,_ . .:c.._ . .,,1, , _,._ ~··.J "l 1}.., ,;,i:.·;1
E'-" '-''l~:ii. ~-...::.d it!i ·~ ,.1- 1 ~:1.i.Hi;J'li··-., :,. . . . • -~t 'et. . j .. !~~~"'i'~ .Lit-_ 2.:; J~.i.t.:l'·i· ·~ .ut~~")~~""-f\:j
:.... r,GlYlbf.i.PfEp:,,ATp .J:UR_I~P1CIIQJ\T. ~ q~l. •f..pp~al,~q.; 1§~._of:
1~~1~ ", -~·;'"1( b1 . ':»~;: r: ·rn_:u·1.~.J::. ;)o1.~fh11 ~"..l .-.~~\'J. ,t).~~ 1..-·u:~:~.1.\ ;t ! u. . ,""J:!~~j
)JJ 1

~_..._·:J :.. ··.i~-r. . o t_.,: -j,, < ., .. 1J!· ·:i: ·.Ii~ i.;~t"1~ ;- - =f"'r.--,.Hr~".1.!!: -..,~-· ::~ ~,,r_Li,-.'1~1.::'"~;1
J' ·t
-{
l'lll! 1~!<?,C~Mtt~7 l~H¥ri.1N·,e11l·trr a,~~. 9.;f-.~~~, qat5d_~~J-i?Z~~~f .~~~ ~J~~-~?.a,?.[!:Wli.,
C~'!r\-l£1n· .' ~~~-~~~~.,,?iJ~.~\~. 0 :J.19 ~~i. •i1.:ni;Pl!h; l ~·111 u~' -;;ldt1'1 ·.'i: hnli
p·
h-::WR'.B:'Misra~foi•th.e·A'ppellant~: · ·: · -J .tic.·.i;")L.. · ':~ ·'? • • u.-. ·n1<- 1bi!h
:~'-.f '"tl.r:·\ JLf~~~~·j s.~~1,1 ·::u~1tH 1 !nf;j.l~.c! ti·,·:;~
b-·~,,.~r. ..~•-J 1·J.iYiu ln~·i".~iii Ub. t 1 Y j ... .;1~ i·
. ,-,mlrshad.A4medifor>the1Respotident:•i' ,'J !r.i ,..,,, 'tfl•. ~1 l1t1 L1!i\ Ii '.lrU (ti
1·m·u") .. 110 lu ;'\.iff,.!<ltd .o• •NfjlJ •>;d1:1.,, ·''' '") ·i~frJ 'J!H .~1L1 .. !;,Jlll •Ti -:H
_~ _1 Th~ }~d~mt'?11-t. of.th~, C9)Jrt ;wa,s d_~liverep by" , '-/,, _\V' _;J\ ;... i _J. ;d

·:-•~;': ·t·!The Uhar·Pfa<iesh--Public'Sei-vice' coriliriissioii·issued afi'adve?tise;)
ment"No. ~!1iEc2[s~·1n.Jiting-applic;:;.iidns}fof'~ppearing at'a'co:t'iipetitive~
: { ex~~n?-ti.<?n ,~~l~~d :t~e ~vi~ ~t::va .(Mui;isif) Examitiatjc:m,_ !-?,88' for
H selectio'n'of can&idateifo~ appoinfulent't6 the said po;t: The tbtal number
f'
U.P.S.C. v. ALPANA[AHMADI,J.] 133
..
of vacancies available at that date was 50. The qualification for. appearin1:~ A
at the examination was that the candidate must possess on the last datt}fred
fot receipt ·of applications a degree of Bachelor of Laws of a University
;established by laW in Uttar Pradesh OT any other lJniversity·of fo.dia recog-
nised for this purpose by the Governor which entitles· him "to 'practice_in
courts ·of law or be an Advocate, Vakil or Pleader on the roll of or be B
entitled to· practice in the Court of Judicature at Allahabad or Courts ·
Subordinate thereto, etc. It was further required that the application shall
be accompanied by an attested cbpy of High School and Intermediate
Certificate.s, Bachelor Degree and Law Degree· E~ination Certificates
and Mark''sheets of each examination. The last date for r~cdpt of the
applications was stated in para 2 of the advertisement to be August 20, C
1988. On a plain reading of the advertisement it becomes clear i:hat the
candidate applying in pursuance of the advertisement had to possess a
Degree of Bachelor bf Laws on the last date fixed for receipt -of applica-
tions; such date in the instant CdSC being August 20; 1988. Not orily that,
but it was further provided that the applica:ions 1>hallbe accompanied by D
an attested copy, intet alia of the Law Degree Examination Certificate and
Mark sheet of such examination. This requirement could never have been
>• fulfilled by those who had not passed the examination b'y August 20, 1988.
· Admittedly, the respondent herein had appeared at the law degree ex-
amination, the result whereof had not been declared till August 20, 1988. E
As per the advertisement, her application was, tht!tefore liable to be
rejeded. It is an undisputed fact that she had applied in pursuance of the
advertisement even though she had not passed the law degree examination
till August 20, 1988. She had merttio_ned in the application that she had
appeared for the law degree ·examination and was awaiting her result In F
the meantime, she successfully cleared the law degree examinatidn, the
~-
' result \vherJbf was declared soine time thereafter in October 1988. Aware
of this position, the Public: Service ·Commission allowed her to apperuc: at
the examination held on 3rd, 4th and Sth May, 1990 and oh her successfully
clearing the written examination she expected a call for the interVi.ew. As
she· did not receive the call she·• made inquiries and learii.t that Public G
· Service' Comnii.s::.~on have taken the'view that since she had not passed the
law degree examination on or· before August 20, °1988 she was not eligible
to be· selected for appoiri.tmenrto the post in questitni. Thereupon, she
apptoached the Higlr Court by way of a Writ Peition No.18918191 w'hith
was allowed by the' order dated July 12, 1991 whereby the Public Setvice H

..
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 1 S.C.R.

A Commission was directed to call her for interview to be held on 15th and
16th of July, 1991. The Court, however, stated that the Public Service X,
Commission should withhold the result until further orders. Pursuant to
the ·said order she was interview~ and the result was· kept in abeyance.
Thereafter, on March 17, 1993 the High Court finally disposed of the
B matter by directing the Public Service Commission to declare her result
and if successful to forward her n~e to the State Government for appoint-
ment within a month from the date of presentation of the certified copy of
the High Court order. A further direction was given that in the event there
was no post available a supernumerary post should be created for her and
appointment made thereon. It is this order of the High Court which is
C challenged in this appeal by special leave.

2: _As already pointed out, on a plain reading of the advertisement
pursuant to which she had made the application, it is obvious that she was
required to. possess the degree of Bachelor of Laws on the last d_ate fixed
D for receipt of applicaitons which was August 20, 1988. This becomes clear
fr~m .the requirement of production of an attested ,copy of the law dgree
examination certificate and marksheet thereof. A. candidate who had not
passe~ the.law degree examination before August 20, 1988 would obviously
_not ,be in a position to comply with this requirement. Admittedly, she did
•, .. 1 not comply with this_ requirement and had stated in her application that on
-E •the last date fixed for receipt of the applications, i.e. August 20, 19~8, she
did not possess the degree of Bachelor of Laws, but that she had appeared
at such examination and was awaiting the result. The result _was declared
some time in October, 1988. She was also permitted to appear at the
written test held by the Public Service Commission but as she did not
F receive any intimation in regard to the oral test she moved the High Court
by way of Writ Petition and obtained an interim order directing the Public
Service Commission to interview her at the interviews to be held on 15th
and 16th 'of July, 1991. In obedience to that order the Public Service
Commission interviewed her, but kept her result in abeyance, which was
G declared after the Writ petition was finally disposed of by the impugned
order of March 17, 1993. By the final order the High Court not only
directed the Public Service Commission to declare the result but further
directed that her name should be forwarded to the Government for ap-
pointment and the Government should, if necessary, create a super-
numerary post and ·appoint her thereon. In taking this view, the High Co~rt
H placed reliance on two of its earlier judgments as well as the judgment of
U.P.S.C. v. ALPANA[AHMADI,J.) 135

this Court in Ashok Kumar Shanna & Anr. v. Chander Shekher & Anr., A .
(1993) 1 S.L.R. 379, dated 18th December, 1992 Therefore, in order to
examine the correctness or otherwise of the conclusion reached by the
High Court we deem it necessary to briefly refer to this Court's decision
in the case of Ashok Kumar Shanna.

3. The factual background of that decision was that pursuant to an B
advertisement issued by the State Government, applications were invited
for apP<>intment to the post of Junior Engineers. The last date for submis-
sion of applications was July 15, 1982. Both the appellants as well as the
contesting respondents had, admittedly, submitted their applications before
the last date. The appellants had appeared for the B.E. (Civil) Examination C
and were awaiting the result which was published on August 20, 1982.

4. Interviews were thereafter held and the appellants were declared
selected on April 21, 1983 and they were duly appointed as Junior. En-
gineers. On merits they were placed senior to the respondents whereupon D
the respondents challenged their appointments on the plea that they were
not qualified to apply. The challenge came to be spurned by two separate
judgments rendered by Single Judges of the High Court on the ground that
the same was barred by latches and in any event what had happened was
that the selection process was made broad based. The Division Bench of
the High Court, however, reversed the decisions. On appeal this Court E
after examining the legal position and in particular rule 37 of the Public
Service Commission Rules which, inter alia, provided that applications of
candidates who had appeared at the examination the result whereof was
awaited may be accepted provisionally but no such candidate shall be
permitted to take the interview unless he is declared successful at the
examination, speaking through Thommen, J., for himself and V. Ramas- F
wamy, J. conceded that although rule 37 is not directly applicable the
principle of that rule can be applied in the facts and circumstances of the
case notwithstanding the fact that the advertisement did not say that such
candidates could apply. In paragraph 14, the majority view was expressed
thus:
G
"If the principle of rule 37 is by analogy applicable, the
fact that notice of provisional entertainment of applica-
tions, subject to passing of the examination before the date
of interview, is a requirement in the interests of candidates
who fell within that category. The appellants are by anal- H
B6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 1 S.C.R.
" .

A ogy persons of that category, but they have no complaint
on any such ground.'

Talcing note of the fact that the appellants had passed the examination ·:;;..__
before the interviews commenced and were interviewed, selected and
B appointed, it held that the recruting authority had made the selection
process broad based and secured the best available talent on comparative
merits. They, tl}erefore, upheld the view taken by the two learned Single
Judges in their separate judgments and reversed the view of the Division
Bench. Sahai, J., however, while agreeing with the conclusion of the
majority observed that a rule framed under one statute cannot be invoked
C for carrying· out the objective of another enactment. He, therefore, ex-
pressed a grave doubt if the rules framed by the Public Service Commission
could be utillised for the purposes of construing the notification issued by
a Government Department having a separate set of rules. In other words,
the learned Judge was not inclined to take the view that rule 37 could be
D made applicable on the principle stated in paragraph 14 of the judgment
extracted 1earlier. However, he noticed that before the candidates were
interviewed their demand was examined by the Secretary in the concerned
department who being satisfied that the prevalent practice was that such ..J... _
candidate should be interviewed directed the board to do so. Therefore, it
was riot· a case of extension of rule 37 by analogy but factually the ap-
E propriate authority had taken a decision to follow the same procedure.
Whetheithis decision was correct or not was not gone into as Sahai, J was
of the view that it would be unfair to quash selection after such a long lapse.
of time. It was thus on equitable considerations that the learned Judge
ultimately agreed with the order proposed by the majority. Two things
F stand out from this judgment, namely, the majority applied by analogy the
principle of rule 37 whereas Sahai, J. endorsed the decision on equitable J..__,
consideraions. It must, however, be noticed that in that case a conscious
decision'~~ taken by the S~cretary of th~ Department that such candidates
who- submitted the ·applications after t.he last date for receipt of applica-
tici~ but before the interviews were held should be considered eligible for
G appointment. This decision was not challenged and its validity was not
required to be gone into. Pursuant to thiS decision such candidates were
examined and selected ori merits and were ultimately appointed. It was only
when they were grant_ed _seniority over others that the latter challenged
their appointments aii~ta ·long lapse of time. The Court was, therefore, )...
H reluctant to disturb the status quo.
··~.

\ U.P.S.C. v.ALPANA[AHMAD!,J.) 137

5. In the ta'cts of the present case we fail to appreciate how the ratio A
of the said decision of this Court can be attracted. The facts of thi5 case
reveal that the respondent was not qualified to apply since the last date
fixed for receipt of applications was August 20, 1988. No rule or practice
is shown to have existed which permitt.•d entertainment of her application.
The Public Service Commission was, therefore, right in refusing to call her
for interview. The High Court in Wirt Peition No.1898/91 mandated the
B
Public Service Commission to interview her but directed to withhold the
result until further orders. In obedience to the directive of the High Court
the Public Service Commission interviewed her but her result was kept in
abeyance. Thereafter, the High Court while disposing of the matter finally
directed the Public Service Commission to · declare her result and, if C
successful, to forward her name for appointment. The High Court even
went to the lengih of ordering the c~eation of a supernumerary post to
accommodate her. This approach of the High Court cannot be supported
on any rule or prevalent practice nor can it be supported on equitable
considerations. In fact there was no occasion for the High Court to D
interfere with the refusal of the Public Service Commission to interview her
in the absence of any specific rule in that behalf. We find it difficult to give
recognition to such an approach of the High Court as that would open up
a flood of litigation. Many candidates superior to the respondent in merit
may not have applied as the result of the examination was not declared
before the last date for receipt of applications. If once such an approach E
is -recognised -there would be several applications received from such
candidates not eligible to apply and that would not only increase avoidable
work of the selecting authorities but would also iocrease the pressure on
such authorities to withhold interviews till the results are declared, thereby
causing avoidable administrative difficulties. This would also leave vacan- F
cies unfilled for long spells of time. We, therefore, find it difficult to uphold
the view of the High Court impugned in this appeal.
I

I
~ 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the
High Court is set aside and the Writ Petition of the respondent will stand
dismissed. However, if the respondent has been appointed in obedience to G
the High Court's order her appointment shall not be cancelled, but if she
is not appointed she will not be entitled to appointment on the basis of the
High Court decision reversed hereby. There will be no order as to costs.

T.NA. Appeal Allowed
.•