caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
The State Of Uttar Pradesh Through … vs Chunni Lal on 23 November, 2021Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6945 OF 2021
State of U.P. …Appellant(s)
Versus
Chunni Lal & Ors. …Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 16.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in Writ Petition No.1181(S/B) of 1996, the
State of U.P. has preferred the present appeal.
2. The selection process for 35 posts of Deputy Collector was
initiated by the U.P. Public Service Commission. A Combined State
Service Examination was held in the year 1985. In the year 1987, the
Public Service Commission sent the requisition for appointment of
Signature Not Verified
selected candidates on the post of Deputy Collector. Two candidates
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2021.11.23
17:17:36 IST
Reason:
namely, Shri Ram Subhag Singh (General Category candidate) and Shri
1
Ramesh Kumar Yadav (OBC category candidate) did not join their post.
Therefore, two posts of Deputy Collectors remained vacant. The Public
Service Commission sent the names of two other candidates namely
Shri Digvijay Singh and Chunni Lal (original writ petitioners) for the
appointment on the post of Deputy Collector. On the basis of the
aforesaid recommendation by the Commission, the State Government
issued letter on 24.04.1989 to the Director General, Medical and Health
Services, Lucknow for medical examination of the aforesaid two
persons. In the meanwhile, private respondent herein Ajay Shankar
Pandey approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No.22966 of
1988. The Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment and order
dated 09.05.1989 allowed the said writ petition and directed the Public
Service Commission to recommend the name of the private respondent
herein – Ajay Shankar Pandey.
2.1 In compliance of the judgment and order dated 09.05.1989, the
Commission vide letter dated 24.06.1989 withdrew the recommendation
made in favour of the original writ petitioner – Chunni Lal. That against
the judgment and order dated 09.05.1989, the State approached this
Court by filing special leave to appeal, which came to be disposed of by
this Court.
2
2.2 Thereafter the respondent No.1 herein – Chunni Lal filed a writ
petition before the High Court against continuance of Ajay Shankar
Pandey. He also preferred a representation. The Division Bench of the
High Court vide order dated 08.11.1996 directed the State/Public
Service Commission to dispose of the representation. The said
representation was considered by the State and the State rejected the
same vide order dated 13.12.1996. The original writ petitioner – Chunni
Lal amended the writ petition and challenged the order dated 13.12.1996
rejecting his representation. By the impugned judgment and order, the
High Court has quashed and set aside the order dated 13.12.1996
rejecting the representation of the respondent No.1 herein and has
directed the State to re-consider the matter of the respondent No.1
herein – original writ petitioner for appointment to the post of Deputy
Collector considering the subsequent recommendation made by the
Public Service Commission in favour of the original writ petitioner.
However, the High Court clarified that the appointment of the respondent
No.2 herein – Ajay Shankar Pandey shall not be disturbed in any
manner.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court, the State has preferred the present
appeal.
3
3. That by order dated 30.10.2014, the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court has been stayed, which has been
continued till date. Meaning thereby, the respondent No.1 herein –
original writ petitioner is not appointed to the post of Deputy Collector
pursuant to the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.
4. Though served nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent
No.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 learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 – Ajay Shankar Pandey
have stated at the Bar that during the pendency of the present
proceedings, respondent No.1 herein – original writ petitioner has retired
in the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner on 31.08.2019 on
attaining the age of superannuation. It is therefore submitted that now
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is not
capable of being implemented as there is no purpose of now appointing
respondent No.1 to the post of Deputy Collector. Even otherwise on
merits also, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court is unsustainable. The High Court ought not to
have or could not have passed an order directing the State to appoint
two persons to the single post of Deputy Collector, more particularly,
4
when on the post of Deputy Collector, respondent No.2 – Ajay Shankar
Pandey was appointed / or was required to be appointed pursuant to the
order passed by the High 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 the
representation, it was specifically observed that the original writ
petitioner cannot be appointed as on the post of Deputy Collector on
which he is claiming the appointment as Ajay Shankar Pandey has been
appointed pursuant to the order passed by the High Court and that there
is no vacant post and even no supernumerary post can be created.
Despite the above, the High Court has directed the State to appoint the
respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner solely on the basis of some
subsequent recommendation by the Public Service Commission. Even
the observation made by the High Court that the original writ petitioner
be appointed without disturbing the appointment of Ajay Shankar
Pandey cannot be sustained. This is because two persons cannot be
directed to be appointed to a single post. Therefore, the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
7. We have noted the submission on behalf of State and the
respondent No.2 – Ajay Shankar Pandey that during the pendency of the
5
present proceedings, respondent No.1 has retired in the post of Deputy
Transport Commissioner on 31.08.2019 on attaining the age of
superannuation and therefore also the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court is not capable of being implemented.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present
appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the
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 no order
as to costs.
………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
NOVEMBER 23, 2021. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
6
Comments