CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2402 of 2002 PETITIONER: SECRETARY, U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION RESPONDENT: UDAY KUMAR UPADHYAYA & ORS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/02/2008 BENCH: H.K. SEMA & MARKANDEY KATJU JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2402 OF 2002
Aggrieved by the order dated 15/11/2000, this appeal has been preferred by the U.P.
Public Service Commission.
Heard the parties.
Briefly stated, the facts are as follows.
Sometimes in the year 1983, an advertisement was issued for filling up posts of 301
Naib Tehsildar. Result was declared on 22/9/1988. In the said result, 297 candidates
were recommended and appointed. Subsequently, 40 recommended candidates did not
join their post within the stipulated time and 6 appointees resigned. Thus, 46 posts
became vacant. For the 46 subsequent vacancies, the department again recommended
46 candidates from the waiting listed. The break-up of 46 candidates are as follows: 32
general candidates, 6 OBC and 8
…..2.
– 2 –
SC candidates. All of them were appointed. It appears that the respondents herein
preferred a writ petition in February 1992 claiming their appointment from the waiting
list. In paragraph 28 of the writ petition, allegation has been made that the respondents
1 to 3, the appellants herein, have committed illegality in giving appointment to the 12
persons who have not even appeared in the examination and they were not in the merit
list and as such their appointment is wholly illegal and is liable to be cancelled. Counter
affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellants rebutting the said contention. Be that
as it may. The allegation in paragraph 28 of the writ petition was as vague as anything.
The name of none of the 12 persons, who were alleged to have been appointed despite
the fact that they did not appear in the examination, has been mentioned, save and
except, making bald statement. They were not made parties. Also it is not the case of the
respondents that they were high in the waiting list and ignoring their candidature, the
persons, who were below them in the waiting list, have been appointed.
By now it is well-settled principles of law that even a recommended candidate does
not possess any indefeasible right. No enforceable right has accrued even to the
recommended candidates. The case of the respondents was still worse. It
………3.
– 3 –
is contended that the respondents, who filed writ petition, were far below than the
candidates who have been appointed from the waiting list. The High Court on such bald
allegation issued a writ of mandamus to the appellants for appointment of the
respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The order of the High Court is clearly not in accordance with
law.
In the result, this appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside. No
costs.