Supreme Court of India
STATE OF U.P. versus CHUNNI LAL & ORS. on 23 November 2021
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 439
STATE OF U.P.
v.
CHUNNI LAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6945 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 23, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointment – A Combined State ServiceExamination was held in the year 1985 – In the year 1987, the PublicService Commission sent the requisition for appointment of selectedcandidates on the post of Deputy Collector – Two candidates didnot join – So, the Commission sent the names of two other candidatesincluding the original writ petitioner for the appointment on thepost of Deputy Collector – Meanwhile, private respondent filed writpetition in the High Court, which was allowed and the commissionwas directed to recommend the private respondent – In compliance,the commission withdrew the recommendation of the original writpetitioner – Thereafter, the original writ petitioner filed the writpetition – The High Court directed the State to re-consider the matterof the original writ petitioner for appointment to the post of DeputyCollector considering the subsequent recommendation made by thePublic Service Commission in favour of the original writ petitioner– However, the High Court clarified that the appointment of theprivate respondent No.2 was not be disturbed in any manner – Onappeal, held: The original writ petitioner cannot be appointed ason the post of Deputy Collector on which he is claiming theappointment as private respondent was already appointed pursuantto the order passed by the High Court and that there was no vacantpost and even no supernumerary post can be created – Despitethat, the High Court directed the State to appoint the original writpetitioner solely on the basis of some subsequent recommendationby the Public Service Commission – Even the observation made bythe High Court that the original writ petitioner be appointed withoutdisturbing the appointment of the private respondent cannot besustained – This is because two persons cannot be directed to beappointed to a single post – Therefore, the impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside – Further,the State and the private respondent have brought to notice that
A
B
C
DEF
GH
Aduring the pendency of the present proceedings, original writpetitioner has retired in the post of Deputy Transport Commissioneron 31.08.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation and thereforealso the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court isnot capable of being implemented.
BCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6945 of2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2014 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench at Lucknow in Writ PetitionNo.1181 (S/B) of 1996.
CV. K. Shukla, Sr. Adv., Adarsh Upadhyay, Amol Chitravanshi,Advs. for the Appellant.
Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Ms. Dipika Misra, Ankit Yadav,Ms. Purnima Jain, Shrish Kumar Misra, Sandeep Kumar Jha, RajeevKumar Dubey, Ms. Saroj Tripathi, Advs. for the Respondents.D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 16.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature atEAllahabad (Lucknow Bench) in Writ Petition No.1181(S/B) of 1996, theState of U.P. has preferred the present appeal.
2. The selection process for 35 posts of Deputy Collector wasinitiated by the U.P. Public Service Commission. A Combined StateService Examination was held in the year 1985. In the year 1987, theFPublic Service Commission sent the requisition for appointment ofselected candidates on the post of Deputy Collector. Two candidatesnamely, Shri Ram Subhag Singh (General Category candidate) and ShriRamesh Kumar Yadav (OBC category candidate) did not join their post.Therefore, two posts of Deputy Collectors remained vacant. The PublicService Commission sent the names of two other candidates namelyGShri Digvijay Singh and Chunni Lal (original writ petitioners) for theappointment on the post of Deputy Collector. On the basis of the aforesaidrecommendation by the Commission, the State Government issued letteron 24.04.1989 to the Director General, Medical and Health Services,Lucknow for medical examination of the aforesaid two persons. In theHmeanwhile, private respondent herein Ajay Shankar Pandey approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No.22966 of 1988. The DivisionBench of the High Court vide judgment and order dated 09.05.1989allowed the said writ petition and directed the Public Service Commissionto recommend the name of the private respondent herein - Ajay ShankarPandey.
2.1 In compliance of the judgment and order dated 09.05.1989,the Commission vide letter dated 24.06.1989 withdrew therecommendation made in favour of the original writ petitioner – ChunniLal. That against the judgment and order dated 09.05.1989, the Stateapproached this Court by filing special leave to appeal, which came tobe disposed of by this Court.
2.2 Thereafter the respondent No.1 herein – Chunni Lal filed awrit petition before the High Court against continuance of Ajay ShankarPandey. He also preferred a representation. The Division Bench of theHigh Court vide order dated 08.11.1996 directed the State/Public ServiceCommission to dispose of the representation. The said representationwas considered by the State and the State rejected the same vide orderdated 13.12.1996. The original writ petitioner – Chunni Lal amended thewrit petition and challenged the order dated 13.12.1996 rejecting hisrepresentation. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Courthas quashed and set aside the order dated 13.12.1996 rejecting therepresentation of the respondent No.1 herein and has directed the Stateto re-consider the matter of the respondent No.1 herein – original writpetitioner for appointment to the post of Deputy Collector consideringthe subsequent recommendation made by the Public Service Commissionin favour of the original writ petitioner. However, the High Court clarifiedthat the appointment of the respondent No.2 herein – Ajay ShankarPandey shall not be disturbed in any manner.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court, the State has preferred the presentappeal.
3. That by order dated 30.10.2014, the impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court has been stayed, which has beencontinued till date. Meaning thereby, the respondent No.1 herein – originalwrit petitioner is not appointed to the post of Deputy Collector pursuantto the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A4. Though served nobody has appeared on behalf of respondentNo.1 – original writ petitioner.
5. Today when the present appeal is taken up for further hearing,learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 – Ajay Shankar PandeyBhave stated at the Bar that during the pendency of the presentproceedings, respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner has retiredin the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner on 31.08.2019 on attainingthe age of superannuation. It is therefore submitted that now the impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court is not capable of beingimplemented as there is no purpose of now appointing respondent No.1Cto the post of Deputy Collector. Even otherwise on merits also, we areof the opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt is unsustainable. The High Court ought not to have or could nothave passed an order directing the State to appoint two persons to thesingle post of Deputy Collector, more particularly, when on the post ofDDeputy Collector, respondent No.2 – Ajay Shankar Pandey was appointed/ or was required to be appointed pursuant to the order passed by theHigh court in Writ Petition No. 22966 of 1988 dated 09.05.1989.
6. At this stage, it is required to be noted that while rejecting therepresentation, it was specifically observed that the original writ petitionerEcannot be appointed as on the post of Deputy Collector on which he isclaiming the appointment as Ajay Shankar Pandey has been appointedpursuant to the order passed by the High Court and that there is novacant post and even no supernumerary post can be created. Despitethe above, the High Court has directed the State to appoint the respondentNo.1 – original writ petitioner solely on the basis of some subsequentFrecommendation by the Public Service Commission. Even the observationmade by the High Court that the original writ petitioner be appointedwithout disturbing the appointment of Ajay Shankar Pandey cannot besustained. This is because two persons cannot be directed to be appointedtoasingle post. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed byGthe High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. We have noted the submission on behalf of State and therespondent No.2 – Ajay Shankar Pandey that during the pendency ofthe present proceedings, respondent No.1 has retired in the post ofDeputyTransport Commissioner on 31.08.2019 on attaining the age of H
STATE OF U.P. v. CHUNNI LAL & ORS.
superannuation and therefore also the impugned judgment and orderpassed by the High Court is not capable of being implemented.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court dated 16.07.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.1181 (S/B)of 1996 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, there shall be noorder as to costs.
Ankit Gyan
Appeal allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H