C.A.No.11149/18

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11149 OF 2018 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.27778 of 2018]

Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission ... Appellant

Versus

Surendra Kumar & Ors. ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

1. We  have  heard  Sh.  Rajiv  Yadav,  learned  counsel  for

appellant  and  Sh.  Alok  Singh,  learned  counsel  for

respondents.

2. This  appeal  is  filed  by  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Public

Service  Commission,  aggrieved  by  the  judgment  and  order

dated 18.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in

Writ Petition No.10180 of 2014.  Necessary facts in brief,

for disposal of this appeal are as under:

3. U.P.  Subordinate  Service  Selection  Commission  had

initiated the process for selection of 178 posts of Sub

1

C.A.No.11149/18

Deputy Inspector of Schools.  The said Commission advertised

by  issuing  advertisement  dated  04.08.2006  in  various

newspapers for selecting the candidates.

4. After  initiating  the  process  of  selection,  U.P.

Subordinate Service Selection Commision was dissolved by the

order of the State Government, and the said process was

entrusted to the appellant, U.P. Public Service Commission.

After completing  the selection  process, the  results were

declared on 06.05.2010 and recommendations were made by the

appellant  Commission  to  State  Government  in  respect  of

selected candidates by various letters in following manner:

Sl. No.

Date Letter No. No. of Posts

1. 12-8-2010 26/3/E-3/2007-2008 0156

2. 9-5-2011 26/3/E-3/2007-2008 08

3. 4-5-2012 26/3/E-3/2007-2008 011

4. 28-8-2012 26/11/E-3/2007-2008 01

5. Altogether recommendations were made to fill up 176

vacancies.  As evident from the counter affidavit, filed

before the High Court, two posts were not filled, in view of

directions  issued  by  the  High  Court  in  Writ  Petition

2

C.A.No.11149/18

No.32960 of 2010.  After receipt of recommendation for 176

candidates, the State Government issued appointment letters

to them, but 7 out of them did not join.  Therefore, their

candidature was cancelled by order dated 18.04.2013.

6. By  letter  dated  30.04.2013,  Director  of  Education

(Basic),  requested  the  appellant-Commission  to  send  the

names of 7 candidates in order of merit for appointment.

The said request has been turned down by the appellant-

Commission  vide  letter  dated  23.07.2013,  stating  that

recommendation was  mainly forwarded  by the  Commission on

12.08.2010 and the wait-list is to be operated within a

period of one year, and the request for 7 more persons has

been sent after 2 years 11 months.

7. Referring  to  G.Os  dated  29.08.1992,  31.01.1994  and

15.11.1999, it is stated that wait-list can be operated only

for a period of one year and as the said period is expired,

therefore, request from the Director of Education (Basic)

for sending 7 more names was not accepted.

8. The first respondent herein,  has filed Writ Petition

before the High Court of Allahabad, for quashing of the

communication  dated  23.07.2013  issued  by  the  appellant-

3

C.A.No.11149/18

Commission  with  a  further  direction  to  the  appellant  to

forward additional names from the wait-list prepared for the

post of Sub Deputy Inspector of Schools.

9. The  High  Court,  by  judgment  and  order  dated

18.05.2018,  allowed  the  Writ  Petition  by  quashing  the

communication dated 23.07.2013 and issued further direction

to  send  the  names  of  requisite  number  of  candidates  to

Director of Education (Basic).

10. In  this  appeal,  it  is  the  case  of  the  appellant-

Commission  that,  for  substantial  number  of  vacancies

recommendations were made vide letter dated 12.08.2010 and

the life of wait-list is only one year, and such period has

to  be  computed  from  the  initial  recommendation  dated

12.08.2010. It is contended that High Court has committed

error by computing the period of one year from the last

recommendation made, vide letter dated 28.08.2012.

11. On  the  other  hand,  it  is  contended  by  the  learned

counsel  Sh.  Alok  Singh,  appearing  for  the

respondent/original petitioner that the requisition was made

for making selections for 178 number of posts and in the

recommendation made vide letter dated 12.08.2010 only 156

4

C.A.No.11149/18

names are recommended and thereafter further recommendations

were  made.   As  such,  the  period  of  one  year  is  to  be

computed  from  the  last  recommendation  but  not  from

12.08.2010. In support of his case, learned counsel also

relied on judgment of this Court dated 16.02.2004 rendered

in C.A. No.1035 of 2004 (Sheo Shyam and Ors. Vs. State of

U.P. and Ors.).

12. Having heard the learned counsels on both sides, we

have perused the order dated 18.05.2018 passed by the High

Court and other material placed on record.  For the purpose

of  operating  wait-list,  Government  of  Uttar  Pradesh  has

issued instructions from time to time. It is clear from the

various Government  Orders that  wait-list period  is valid

only for a period of one year.  Though requisition is made

for making selection for 178 number of posts, but appellant-

Commission, after delcaring results of the examination, has

made initial recommendation for substantive number of posts,

i.e., 156 posts vide letter dated 12.08.2010.  It appears

that the said list is prepared by including candidates who

have submitted all the requisite documents within the period

prescribed.  Further recommendations  were also  made, but

5

C.A.No.11149/18

there is no reason for not computing the period of one year

from  12.08.2010.   When  recommendations  were  made  for

substantive number of posts on 12.08.2010, we are of the

view that period of one year for operating wait-list is to

be  computed  from  12.08.2010  but  not  from  the  last

recommendation  made  for  one  post,  vide  letter  dated

28.08.2012.  The reason for restricting 156 names in the

initial  recommendation  vide  letter  dated  12.08.2010,  is

explained in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed

before the High Court.  

13. We have also perused the judgment of this Court in

Civil Appeal No.1035 of 2004 dated 16.02.2004, relied on by

the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 but same would

not render any assistance in support of his case having

regard  to  fact  situation  in  the  said  case.   Office

Memorandum  dated  14.01.1999  which  was  interpreted,  was

categorical to the effect that period of one year is to be

reckoned from last date of taking names from the waiting

list.  As such, it cannot be applied to the facts of the

case at hand.

6

C.A.No.11149/18

14. For  the  aforesaid  reasons,  the  appeal  is  allowed.

Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 18.05.2018 passed

by the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No.10180 of

2014 is set aside.  There will be no order as to costs.

.................... J. [Uday Umesh Lalit]

.................... J. [R. Subhash Reddy]

New Delhi November 22, 2018

7