NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10808 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 14872 OF 2013]

U.P. SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICE SELECTION BOARD  APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS

THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH C.A. NO.10809/2017 @ SLP(C) No.14888/2013 C.A. NO.10810/2017 @SLP(C) No.14045/2014

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

Leave granted. 2. I.A. No.74173/2017 is allowed at the risk of the appellant(s). 3. The appellants are aggrieved only to the extent of  the  following  answer  in  the  impugned  Reference Order:-

“The  interpretation,  the  scope  and applicability  of  Rule  13(5)  of  the  U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998 as affirmed in the case of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Allahabad v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Special Appeal No.146 of 2010 decided on 21.01.2011)

1

is upheld as laying down the law correctly by confining its applicability to the vacancies that  are  subject  matter  of  the  same advertisement and not to such vacancies that were notified but not subject matter of the same advertisement.”

4. According  to  the  learned  counsel,  in  case  the candidates who have reported pursuant to the advice and  in case  they are  not accommodated,  their case will have to be dealt with in terms of Rule 13 of the 1998  Rules,  which  has  been  amended  on  23.01.2007. The  amendment,  to  the  extent  relevant,  reads  as follows:-

“Where a candidate selected by the Board could not join in an allocated institution due to non-availability of vacancy or for any other  reason,  the  District  Inspector  of Schools shall recommend to the Board in any other  institution.  On  receipt  of  the recommendation of the District Inspector of Schools  the  Board  shall  allocate  such candidate to another institution in a vacancy notified to the Board.”

5. The  issue  pertains  to  the  candidates  who  have already been selected but could not be accommodated for want of vacancies.  In such cases, it cannot be said that the Board has no power to accommodate them. They  will  have  to  be  certainly  accommodated  in available or arising vacancies. 6. The impugned order will stand clarified to the above extent. 7. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.

2

8. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 9. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [R. BANUMATHI]  

NEW DELHI; AUGUST 23, 2017.

3