NDLI: Anupal Singh and Others Vs. State of U.p Through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and Others

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Reservation policy Selection process Service Law Post of Technical Assistant
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Service Law: Selection process – Reservation policy – Post of Technical Assistant – Appellants as well as private respondents applied for and appeared in the written examination held in 2014 – As per U.P. Reservation Act, specific percentages of vacancies were reserved for different categories – It was brought to notice of State Government that there was wrongful calculation of category-wise vacancies in the earlier requisition and, therefore, the earlier requisition was required to be revised – State Government by order dated 20.08.2014, re-worked the vacancies for different categories of persons and sent the revised requisition for the vacancies for different categories to UP Public Service Commission (UPPSC) after adjustment of diploma holders against ‘general category’ – Based on revised requisition, UPPSC declared the result of written examination, wherein appellants as well as private respondents were declared successful – Thereafter, UPPSC issued O.M. dated 12.10.2014 specifically mentioning the number of vacancies to be filled up in various categories in consonance with order dated 20.07.2014 – Successful candidates appeared in interview on 27.10.2014 and finally result of select list candidates was declared on 21.05.2015 – Private respondents did not qualify – Unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions before High Court challenging the validity of O.M. 12.10.2014 and the result declared on 21.05.2015 and praying for quashing the same and for preparation of result afresh without giving effect to O.M. 12.10.2014 – The impugned result was also assailed on the ground that it contravened s.3(1) of UP Reservation Act, 1994 and r.15(3) of UP Subordinate Agriculture Services Rules, 1993 and also that the percentage of reservation to SC/ST and OBC categories crossed the upper limit of 50% – Held: Revised requisition dated 20.8.2014 and OM dated 12.10.2014 was valid since it was only intended to rectify wrongful calculation of number of vacancies in different categories and to comply with requisite percentage of quota of reservation in different categories as per 1994 Act – By virtue of r.15 and r.6 of UP Subordinate Agriculture Services Rules, 1993 (Agriculture Service Rules, 1993), the Recruitment Authority is empowered to rectify the wrongful calculation and make a revised requisition of number of vacancies in different categories which is in accordance with the provisions of UP Reservation Act, 1994 – High Court was not right in saying that the diploma holders ought not to have been absorbed against the “General category” so as to alter the advertised number of posts against the “General category” – Absorption of diploma holders were required to be done only against the “General quota” – Revising the number of vacancies in different categories to satisfy reservation quota scheme as per UP Reservation Act, 1994 would not amount to changing the rules of the game after the commencement of the selection process – Having participated in the interview and when they failed in the final selection, it was not open to the private respondents/intervenors to turn around and challenge the revised notification dated 12.10.2014 and the final select list dated 21.05.2015 – The filling up of the unfilled horizontal reservation by the candidates from the respective vertical reservation is in accordance with the policy of the government and the same cannot be faulted with – Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994. Service law: Selection process – Reservation scheme – Appointment letter not issued to 906 candidates – Plea to exercise power under Art.142 of the Constitution of India – The 906 candidates were not issued the appointment orders in order to keep the appointment within the permissible percentage of reservation as per UP Reservation Act, 1994 – These 906 candidates who were left out and were not issued appointment orders were ranked lower in the merit list than the last selected candidate in their respective category under the reservation limit as identified by the Personnel Department, therefore appointment orders were not issued to them – This cannot be said to be arbitrariness or discrimination as selection of candidates was on the basis of the merit list – Therefore, power under Art.142 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to issue direction to the State to issue appointment orders to 906 candidates – Constitution of India – Art.142. Service law: Selection process – It is a settled law that a person having consciously participated in the interview cannot turn around and challenge the selection process – Having appeared in the interview without any demur or protest, it is not open to the candidates to challenge the selection process on the ground that there was modification in the number of vacancies in different categories and they are estopped by the principle of estoppel from challenging the same – Doctrine of estoppel. Service law: Selection process – It is fairly well-settled that the selected candidates do not have any indefeasible right to be appointed – Merely because the names of candidates were included in the provisional select list, they do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed. Doctrines/Principles: Doctrine of res judicata – Batch of writ petitions disposed of by High Court by common judgment containing common operative portion of judgment – Appeal filed in few writ petitions – Decision of Supreme Court – Whether judgment rendered in other writ petitions by High Court having not been challenged, have attained finality and operate as res judicata – Held: The decision of Supreme Court is binding on all the writ petitioners before High Court even though they were not parties in the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Judge	Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 1099
Petitioner	Anupal Singh And Others
Respondent	State Of U.p Through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department And Others
SCR	[2019] 12 S.C.R. 1071
Judgement Date	2019-09-30
Case Number	4815

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Anupal Singh and Others Vs. State of U.p Through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Gelus Ram Sahu and Others Vs. Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh and Others

Pradeep Singh Dehal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary & Ors. Vs. Seema Sharma

Dilbag Singh Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

Smt. Shyamo Devi and Others Vs. State of U.p. Through Secretary and Others

Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. Vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.

Anil Kumar Mahajan Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi and Others

State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary & Anr. Vs. Mahendra Gupta & Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Anupal Singh and Others Vs. State of U.p Through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and Others

Anupal Singh and Others Vs. State of U.p Through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Gelus Ram Sahu and Others Vs. Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh and Others

Pradeep Singh Dehal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary & Ors. Vs. Seema Sharma

Dilbag Singh Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

Smt. Shyamo Devi and Others Vs. State of U.p. Through Secretary and Others

Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. Vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.

Anil Kumar Mahajan Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi and Others

State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary & Anr. Vs. Mahendra Gupta & Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Anupal Singh and Others Vs. State of U.p Through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and Others