Allowed

Manish Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2019WRIA/4204/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of three writ petitions seeking appointment of wait-listed candidates as Civil Judges (Junior Division) for posts vacant due to non-joining of selected candidates in 2016. The Court directed the UP Public Service Commission to forward the wait-list within 30 days and direct authorities to fill such specific vacancies within the next 30 days, provided they were not utilized in s

What did the court decide?

Directing UP Public Service Commission to forward the wait-list and the State authorities to fill the specific vacant posts from the wait-list within 30 days, subject to verification that these posts

Manish Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4204 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh

¶4

2. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10526 of 2019

¶5

Petitioner :- Farheen Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Jainendra Pandey,Anjani Kumar Mishra,Shreesh Bahadur Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh and

¶6

3. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27614 of 2018

¶7

Petitioner :- Gargi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh

¶8

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶9

Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 4204 of 2019 and 27614 of 2018 and Sri Jainendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10526 of 2019, Sri M.N. Singh who has appeared for U.P. Public Service Commission, Sri Saurabh Srivastava, Chief Standing Counsel-III for the State of UP and Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

¶10

These bunch writ petitions raise similar issues namely issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents-authorities to fill the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division), which were advertised on 29.7.2016 by operating the waiting list in asmuch as ten candidates who were selected to such service but did not join the service.

¶11

Counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to provisions contained in Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2001”). Specific attention has been drawn to the provisions contained in Rule 20 under part VI of the Rules, 2001 dealing with the appointment, probation and confirmation and also to the provision contained in Rule 21 of Rules, 2001 dealing with appointment to the service.

¶12

Placing reliance on these Rules and the compliance report filed by the Chief Standing Counsel – III, it is submitted that even the Special Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Department of Personnel, Government of UP, Lucknow vide letter bearing No. 576/Two-4-2019-32(1)/2016 addressed to the Secretary, UP Public Service Commission dated 26.8.2019 enclosed as Annexure CA-2 alongwith compliance affidavit filed by the learned Chief Standing Counsel, in para-2 makes a clear mention of names of 10 candidates who were though selected to be appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Divison), but they have not joined the posts consequent to their selection which was initiated in the year 2016. For ready reference contents of para nos. 2 to 5 of said communication are reproduced herein below :

¶13

2- इस संबंध में अवगत कराना है किक किनम्नलि�लि�त 10 अभ्यर्थि�यों द्वारा अन्य प्रदेशों में न्यायियक सेवायें की जा रही हैं त�ा इनके द्वारा उ०प्र० न्यायियक सेवा

¶14

¶15

सिसकिव� जज (जूकिनयर यि,वीजन) सेवा में योगदान किकये जाने में रूयि/ भी नहीं किद�ाई जा रही हैः-

¶16

श्री अजीत नारायण

¶17

श्री अकिनमेष भास्कर मणिण कि9पाठी

¶18

सुश्री श्रुयित /ौधरी

¶19

सुश्री मनु श्री

¶20

श्री मनीष जैन

¶21

श्री गौरव शमा>

¶22

श्री रूकिपन्दर सिंसह धीमान

¶23

सुश्री किप्रया यादव

¶24

श्री कुमारेश

¶25

श्री तनवीर अहमद

¶26

3- कार् म िक अनुभाग- 4 के शासनादेश संख्या 1760-आ/47-का4-93-28-51980, किदनांक 31.01.1994 के प्रस्तर 5 और 6 में किनम्नलि�लि�त प्राकिवधान किकया गया हैः-

¶27

(5) प्रतीक्षा सू/ी केव� 01 वष> के लि�ए वैध होगी /ाहे प्रयितवष> होने वा�े प्रयितयोकिगतात्मक परीक्षा से संबंयिधत हो अ�वा किकसी /यन किवशेष से। कयितपय माम�ों में यह दे�ा गया है किक किवभागों द्वारा किनधा>रिरत अवयिध के अन्दर आयोग से प्रतीक्षा सू/ी से नाम मांग लि�ये जाने पर भी आयोग द्वारा किनधा>रिरत 01 वष> की अवयिध में प्रतीक्षा सू/ी में नाम उप�ब्ध नहीं कराये जाते। अतः समस्या के समाधान हेतु सिजन माम�ों में किवभाग द्वारा किनधा>रिरत अवयिध एक वष> की अवयिध के अन्दर यकिद आयोग से प्रतीक्षा सू/ी से नाम मांग लि�ये गये हों, किकन्तु आयोग ने किनधा>रिरत अवयिध में नाम उप�ब्ध न कराया हो ऐसे माम�ों प्रतीक्षा सू/ी एक वष> के बाद भी वैध होगी।

¶28

¶29

(6) यकिद किनधा>रिरत अवयिध में प्रतीक्षा सू/ी का उपयोग नहीं होता है अ�वा किनधा>रिरत अवयिध में किवभागों द्वारा आयोग से नाम नहीं मांग लि�या जाता है तो जो भी रिरकिKयां रह जायेंगी वह अ�गे वष> के लि�ए अग्रेनीत मानी जायेंगी। 4- कार् म िक अनुभाग-4 के शासनादेश संख्या- 28/5/80-का/4-1999, किदनांक 15.11.1999 के अनुसार-

¶30

�ोक सेवा आयोग, उ०प्र० द्वारा आयोसिजत प्रयितयोकिगतात्मक परीक्षाओं त�ा अन्य /यनों के आधार पर /यकिनत अभ्यर्थि�यों को किनयुकिK प्रदान करने एवं प्रतीक्षा सू/ी से नाम मांगने संबंधी पूव> में किनग>त शासनादेशों के अनुपा�न में आने वा�ी ककिठनाईयों को ध्यान में र�ते हुए शासन द्वारा यह किनण>य लि�या गया है, किक एक� संवग> के पदों को छोड़कर अन्य समस्त सम्मलि�त सेवाओं एवं अन्य /यनों में प्रतीक्षा सू/ी का किनमा>ण नहीं किकया जायेगा और न ही किकसी प्रकार रिरशफलिं�ग की काय>वाही की जायेगी।

¶31

5- उपरोK वर्थिणत तथ्यों के परिरप्रेक्ष्य में मुझे यह कहने का किनदेश हुआ है किक कृपया उत्तर प्रदेश सिसकिव� जज जूकिनयर यि,वीजन परीक्षा , 2016 में /यकिनत उपरोK 10 अभ्यर्थि�यों के अभ्य�>न के संबंध में शीष> प्रा�किमकता के आधार पर किनयमानुसार किनण>य �ेकर काय>वाही कराने का कष्ट करें। मा० उच्च न्याया�य, इ�ाहाबाद द्वारा उपयु>K रिरट किपटीशन में पारिरत आदेश के दृकिष्टगत समयबद्ध काय>वाही अपेयिक्षत है।

¶32

Learned Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, admits that this communication to the Special Secretary to Government of UP is ambiguous and lacks clarity in asmuch as it fails to make any reference to the provisions contained in Rule 21 (2) of the Rules, 2001.

¶33

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the controversy raised in these writ petitions in short is

¶34

¶35

that wait listed candidates are seeking indulgence of this Court to seek appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Divison) by operation of the wait list as was prepared by the UP Public Service Commission in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 20(3) of the Rules, 2001. For ready reference provisions contained in Rule 20 and 21 are reproduced here under:

¶36

20. List of candidate approved by the Commission.- (1) After the result of written examination is prepared, the Commission shall call for interview such number of candidates, who in the opinion of the Commission have secured minimum marks as may be fixed by the Commission in this respect.

¶37

(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rules or orders, the Commission shall invite a sitting Judge of the Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice to participate in the interview of the candidates called under sub-rule (1) and the opinion given by him with regard to the suitability of the candidates shall not be disregarded by the Commission unless there are strong and cogent reasons for not accepting the opinion which reasons must be recorded in writing by the Commission.

¶38

(3) The Commission then shall prepare a final list of selected candidates in order of their proficiency as disclosed by aggregate of marks finally awarded to each candidate in the written examination and the interview: Provided that if two or more candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the name of the candidate being elder in age, shall be placed higher: Provided further that if two or more candidates of equal age obtain equal marks in aggregate, the name of the

¶39

¶40

candidate, who has obtained higher marks in the written examination, shall be placed higher.

¶41

21. Appointment to the service.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), the Governor shall, on receipt of the list of candidates submitted by the Commission under sub-rule (3) of Rule 20, make appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the order in which their names are given in the list provided the Governors is satisfied that the Candidate is otherwise qualified and entitled for such appointment under these rules. (2) The select list prepared under sub-rule (3) of Rule 20 shall lapse after all the vacancies advertised or varied after due notification, are filled up.

¶42

A perusal of Rule 20 (3) clearly provides that after preparation of final list of selected candidates, the Commission is obliged to prepare wait list of 10% of the existing vacancies.

¶43

As per advertisement which was published in the year 2016, recruitment was to be made for 218 posts, but only 208 posts could be filled up from amongst various categories and, therefore, wait list has to be operated in relation to those candidates under different categories who had not joined the posts and said vacancies accruing due to said candidates not joining the posts have not been utilised for any subsequent vacancies, as per Sub Rule 3 of Rule 20.

¶44

We are in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that compliance affidavit of August, 2019 lacks clarity

¶45

¶46

and it has failed to take into consideration the specific provision contained in Sub Rule 2 of Rule 21 reproduced above which categorically provides that the select list prepared under sub Rule (3) of Rule 2001 will lapse after the vacancies advertised or varied after due notification are filled up.

¶47

We are not commended though any material that memo contained in Government Order Karmik Anubhag-4 GO No. 1760-Aa/47Ka-4-93-28-5-1980 dated 31.10.1994 supersedes the provisions contained in Rule 21(2) of the Rules, 2001.

¶48

There is no material to show that in terms of the note above Sub Rule 3 of Rule 20 that the vacancies which remained unutilised due to non joining of 10 candidates mentioned in the GO dated 26.8.2019 have been utilised for any subsequent recruitment. In fact, pleadings are silent on such aspects.

¶49

In view of the aforesaid and looking to the facts that Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the High Court has categorically stated across the Bar that such vacancies have not been utilized for any subsequent recruitment, therefore, we issue the following directions in these writ petitions for compliance to the authoritiesrespondents in the following terms :

¶50

(1) The respondent (UP Public Service Commission) shall forward list of wait list candidates against each category (keeping vertical and horizontal reservation in mind) within 30 days from today and the concerned authorities of the State subject to verification that the post which were advertised in the year 2016 remained vacant due to non joining of the selected candidates and

¶51

¶52

further that such posts have not been utilized in any subsequent recruitment shall fill said posts strictly in accordance with the Rules against categories from which posts could not be filled up in order of merit of the wait list candidates within further period of 30 days and submit compliance report to the Registrar General within 75 days from today.

¶53

The writ petitions are disposed of in above terms.

¶54

Order Date :- 18.10.2019 S.K.S.

¶55

Manish Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Benara Auto Private Limited Vs Bank of Baroda and 2 Others

Surya Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Uma Srivastava Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Shivam Chaurasia Vs Idbi Bank Limited Sharda Business Plaza

Ram Chail Maurya Vs Purvanchal Vidhut Vitran Nigam and 2 Others

Nadeem Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others