Allowed

Prem Chand v. the State of U.P.Thr. Prin Secy Personnel and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2023WRIA/2001611/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single Bench held that the State Commission's order revising the entire examination result, thereby ousting a confirmed general category petitioner, was beyond the scope of a prior Division Bench order limited to reserved category readjustment. The High Court quashed the revision orders as arbitrary and illegal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 17.11.2006 and Government Orders dated 19.10.2006 and 14.11.2006 relating to revision of the 1988 examination result are quashed.

Prem Chand Vs the State of U.P.Thr. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:43104

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2001611 of 2006

¶4

Petitioner :- Prem Chand

¶5

Respondent :- The State Of U.P.Thr. Prin Secy Personnel And 3 Ors.

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Jain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Shukla,I.P.Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri R.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the U.P. Public Service Service Commission.

¶9

Cause for filing these writ petitions is action taken by the opposite parties while implementing the judgement and order of a Division Bench of this Court passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33878 of 1998 on 10.8.2005.

¶10

By impugned orders dated 17.11.2006, 19.10.2006 and 14.11.2006, the result of the petitioner in this writ petition was revised and the petitioner was ousted from service, on which he was appointed on 28.04.1995 after the result of the Uttar Pradesh Combined Upper Subordinate Examination, 1988 was declared in the year 1992.

¶11

The facts of the writ petition are noted herein below:-

¶12

i. The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') in the year 1988 invited applications for appearing in Uttar Pradesh Combined Upper Subordinate Examination, 1988 for selection on the posts of Deputy Regional Marketing Officer, Passenger Tax Officer/Goods Tax Officer, Block Development Officer, Sub Registrar, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika and Assistant Labour Officer. The petitioner and others, who had eligibility, applied for the said examination. The examination took place in the year 1990 and final result was declared on 28.07.1992. The petitioner in this writ petition was placed in the waiting list.

¶13

ii. The petitioner was appointed on 28.04.1995 on the post of Sub Registrar in Tax and Registration Department, which was subject matter of advertisement for the Examination,1988. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Category.

¶14

Two candidates, namely, Smt. Kamlesh Sachan and Naresh Baboo, who appeared in the Examination of 1988 belong to Other Backward Class category, approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33878 of 1998. It was alleged that allotment of posts was not done in accordance with the Government policy laid down in the Government Orders dated 11.4.1991, 19.12.1991 and 16.4.1992 in respect of the reserved category candidates.

¶15

According to these Government Orders, candidates belonging to reserved category were to be allotted posts along with the general category candidates, who have been qualified on their merit at par with general category candidates without availing of any concession permissible for reserved category candidates. In such cases, according to the Commission, such meritorious candidates of the reserved candidates, who have been qualified with general category candidates, were allowed to avail general vacancies considering their preferences.

¶16

The Commission while allotting the posts to the reserved category candidates, the candidates, who had obtained lower marks in the merit list, were allotted the post of Block Development Officer, whereas two petitioners, who had secured higher marks, were alloted to the post of Assistant Labour Officer.

¶17

This Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Commission to reconsider the claim of the two petitioners, who had approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition, in accordance with the merit in the reserved category of Other Backward Classes and re-adjust their allotment vis-a-vis, five private opposite parties, who had secured lower marks than the petitioners, but were given the higher posts.

¶18

The aforesaid judgement and order passed by this Court in the aforesaid case attained finality inasmuch as it was not challenged before the Supreme Court.

¶19

From perusal of the judgement and order dated 10.08.2005, it is evident that the Commission was directed to reconsider the claim of the two petitioners viz-a-viz private opposite parties no.3 to 7, who though had secured lower marks than the two petitioners, were allotted higher posts by the Commission. There was no direction to revise the whole result, which included the general category candidates, including the petitioner.

¶20

The Commission, however, instead of only carrying out limited exercise in respect of the petitioner and five private

¶21

opposite parties, who were the parties in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33878 of 1998, revised the whole result of the examination of 1988 and thus, ousted the petitioner, who was appointed on the basis of the merit secured in examination of Scheduled Caste Category and was confirmed and had put in 11 years of service when impugned orders were passed.

¶22

There is no dispute regarding the scope of the judgement and order dated 10.8.2005, which was limited in its scope for readjustment of the petitioner in that writ petition vis-a-vis the private opposite parties in the said writ petition. There was no direction to revise the whole result and thus, the exercise carried out by the Commission in revising the whole result, including the result of the general category candidates, is clearly beyond the scope of the judgement and order dated 10.8.2005 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33878 of 1998. Such an exercise carried out by the Commission, is not provided in any statutory provisions. There is no allegation that the petitioner had secured the appointment by adopting any unfair means. Once the petitioner was confirmed after appointment in pursuance to the selection, his result could not have been revised after 11 years of service. The impugned orders are thus, wholly arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the judgement and order dated 10.8.2005 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33878 of 1998.

¶23

The impugned Government Orders dated 14.11.2006 and 19.10.2006 could not have been given retrospective effect in respect of the appointments, which had already been given effect to in pursuance to the Examination of 1988. Therefore, the action taken in giving effect to these Government Orders are wholly unjustified, arbitrary and illegal, so far they relate to revise the result of Examination of 1988, and are liable to be quashed.

¶24

In the result, the writ petitions is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.11.2006 and the Government Orders dated 19.10.2006, 14.11.2006, so far they relate to revise the result of Examination of 1988 of the petitioner, are hereby quashed.

¶25

However, it is made clear that on the basis of interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, has retired from service on 30.04.2017.

¶26

Order Date :- 5.7.2023 Adarsh K Singh

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prem Chand v. the State of U.P.Thr. Prin Secy Personnel and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Chand v. the State of U.P.Thr. Prin Secy Personnel and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Narendra Shanker Tripathi and Another Vs State of U.P.Thru Secy. Medical and Health Lucknow and Another

Gopal Bihari Mehrotra Vs State of U.P.Thru Secy. Minor Irrigation and Rural Engg.and Anr.

Yakub Hussain and 2 Others Vs the State of U.P.Thru Secy. Deptt.of P.W.D. Lucknow and 3 Ors.

Ram Bahal Verma Vs Dy. Registrar Coop. Socs. and 4 Others

Santosh Kumar Awashthi Vs State of U.P. through Secy.Forest Lucknow and Another

Dr.Seema Verma Vs State of U.P.through Principal Secy.