In this writ petition, candidates rejected for a Staff Nurse post sought a direction to be considered as contractual employees in light of a Supreme Court observation. The Single Judge Court, relying on a recent Single Bench decision in a similar matter, dismissed the petition as devoid of merits.
None. Writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3620 of 2021
Petitioner :- Sangeeta And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the fifth respondent.
Petitioners, three in number, pursuant to Advertisement dated 09.01.2017 issued by the fifth respondent, Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad, applied for the post of Staff Nurse (Female). In the final result declared by the Commission, petitioners' name was not included.
By the instant petition, petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to decide their representation in light of the observation made by the Supreme Court in judgment or order dated 19.07.2019 passed in SLP (Civil) Dairy No (s). 17510 of 2019 (Sangeeta and others Versus U.P. Public Service Commission and others) connect with SLPs' Nos. 17985 of 2019 and 23952 of 2019."
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, at the out set, submits that the writ petition filed by other similar situated candidates came to be decided on 01.02.2021 by this Court in Writ-A No. 12212 of 2020 (Sujata and 89 others Versus State of U.P. and others). The relevant portion of the order is extracted:
"The prayer in the writ petition is wholly misconceived. In the first round of litigation initiated by some of the petitioners herein, the challenge was to a notification issued by the Public Service Commission subsequent to the advertisement dated 12.01.2017. The said writ petition was allowed vide judgement and order dated 11.12.2018 and the notification dated 01.09.2018 in so far as it purports to exclude candidates who had not obtained minimum qualifying marks was quashed. The Commission was directed to redraw the final result in accordance with the rules.
The Special Appeal No.142 of 2019 against the said decision had been allowed vide judgement and order dated 05.03.2019. The Special Leave Petition had been dismissed affirming the decision of the Division Bench in rejecting the prayers of the petitioners. It appears that while the Special Leave Petition was being dismissed by the Apex Court, some prayer was made on behalf of the petitioners, pursuant to that following observations were made:-
"The special leave petitions are disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to make appropriate representation before the concerned authorities to consider as to whether the petitioners could be treated as a separate class and their case be considered, as petitioners being the contractual employees."
Based on the said observations fresh representation were filed by the petitioners which have been rejected by the order impugned.
It is more than evident that the petitioners had participated in the selection process undertaken in the year 2017 but could not qualify for appointment to the post of Staff Nurse (Direct Recruitment Post).
Having been disqualified in the final result declared by the Commission, they cannot be allowed to sustain the challenge to the decision not be treat them as a separate class being contractual employees working for some years, when there was no such quota. No infirmity is found in the decision of the respondent.
The writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed."
On being confronted with the judgment and order passed in the above noted judgment and order, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the proposition advanced in the instant writ petition is squarely covered.
In view thereof, the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.9.2021 K.K. Maurya
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners can be treated as a separate class of contractual employees for appointment to a direct recruitment post.
Whether the petitioners' challenge to not being treated as a separate class warrants a direction to reconsider their representation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sangeeta and others versus U.P. Public Service Commission and othersReferred¶7
SLP (Civil) Dairy No (s). 17510 of 2019 (Sangeeta and others Versus U.P. Public Service Commission and others)
Sangeeta and others versus U.P. Public Service Commission and othersReferred¶7
SLP (Civil) Dairy No (s) Nos 17985 of 2019 and 23952 of 2019
Sujata and 89 others versus State of U.P. and othersFollowed¶8
Writ-A No. 12212 of 2020 (Sujata and 89 others Versus State of U.P. and others)
Sangeeta And 2 Others
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Suneet Kumar
K.K. Maurya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
