Ajay Kumar Sonkar vs Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad and others

Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Bharati Sapru, JJ.—This Writ Petition has been filed for issuing a direction to the respondents to reshuffle the select list and appoint the petitioner on the post of Trade Tax Officer in pursuance of the U.P. Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services Examination, 1993 conducted by the U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad in January, 1996, in reserved (Scheduled Casts) category.

The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that U.P. Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services Examination, 1993 was held and that its result was declared in May, 1996. Petitioner''s name appeared at Serial No. 163 of the successful candidates. He belongs to the Scheduled Caste Category. Appointments were notified on 10th July, 1997 and petitioner had been offered appointment in U.P. Finance and Accounts Services. Petitioner joined the aforesaid service on 25th July, 1997. Two candidates of the Scheduled Caste Category, who had been offered the post of Trade Tax Officer, did not join. They had been placed in the combined select list over and above the petitioner as their names appeared at Serial Nos. 155 and 160. In the instant case, in spite of repeated representations moved by the petitioner on 4.3.1998 and 5th August, 1999, the select list was not reshuffled nor the appointment was offered to the petitioner on the post of Trade Tax Officer, though in other categories, in similar circumstances, the select list was reshuffled and higher posts were offered to the candidates who had joined other senders. Hence, the present petition.

Shri R.C. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as two candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste Category did not join the post of Trade Tax Officer, it was necessary for the respondents to reshuffle the select list and offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of Trade Tax Officer, as has been done in other branches of the administration. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.

On the other hand, Shri M.A. Qadeer, learned Counsel appearing for the Commission and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the other respondents have submitted that the select list had a life of only one year which expired long back, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit at such a belated stage. Marc inclusion of someone''s name in the panel or in waiting list does not confer any legal right to be appointed. Even if some persons have been better posts after reshuffling subsequent to the expiry of the life of the select list, petitioner cannot claim parity with them. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

We have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

There is no dispute to the factual matrix that subsequent to the declaration of the result, recommendations had been made to the State Government on 21st August, 1996. The life of select list was one year. Therefore, it was not permissible for the State Government to make requisition after 20th August, 1997, though in certain categories, appointments had been made up to 12th January, 1998. In the instant case, no requisition had ever been made by the State Government to the U.P. Public Service Commission for the post of Trade Tax Officer. Therefore, the posts, which remained vacant by not joining by two reserved category candidates, had been carried forward.

It is not the case of the petitioner that the said two posts had not been included in the subsequent selection or those vacancies had not yet been filled up.

Shri R.C. Singh has tried to convince that the life of one year of the select list was to be reckoned from the date of refusal from joining the post by successful candidates of the select list and, therefore, the petitioner could be offered the post of Trade Tax Officer on his demand made on 4.3.1998. Submissions so made by Shri Singh are not acceptable for the reason that the documents annexed by the petitioner himself, particularly Annexure 6 of the Writ Petition, is a Government Order dated 31.1.1994 which clearly stipulated that in case the recommendations are made and appointments are offered and the candidates do not join, the select list may be reshuffled and for that purpose the requisition may be asked by the State Government from the Commission. Clause 5 of the said Government Order provides that the waiting list shall be valid for a period of one year and the names can be requisitioned by the State Government within that period from the Commission. Clause 6 further provides that in case names are not requisitioned from the waiting list within the said stipulated period and vacancy remained unfilled, the same shall be carried forward for the next year.

In view of the above, there can be no doubt that no vacancy could be filled up after 20th August, 1997.

A Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Shankersan Dash v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612, held that appearance of the name of a candidate in the select list does not give him a right of appointment. Similar view has subsequently been taken by the Supreme Court in Asha Kaul and another v. State of J&K and others, (1993) 2 SCC 573; Union of India v. S.S. Uppal, AIR 1996 SC 2340; Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India and others, (1996) 10 SCC 742; Union of India v. K.V. Vijesh, (1996) 3 SCC 139; Bihar Public Service Commission v. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 2280; Syndicate Bank and others v. Shanker Paul, AIR 1997 SC 3091; Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra, (1997) 10 SCC 264; Simanchal Panda v. State of Orissa and others, (2002) 2 SCC 669 and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another v. S.G. Kotturappa and another, (2005) 3 SCC 409.

Therefore, even if the petitioner''s name had been included in the panel, that does not create any legal right in his favour and in case the State has not requisitioned the names from the Commission after the two persons of the Scheduled Category did not join, that would not confer any legal right upon the petitioner to be appointed against the said posts.

It is settled legal proposition that no relief can be granted to the candidate if he approaches the Court after expiry of the Select List. (Vide J. Ashok Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, JT (1996) 3 SC 320; State of Bihar and others v. Mohd. Kalimuddin, AIR 1996 SC 1145; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Harish Chandra, AIR 1996 SC 2173; Sushma Sun v. Government of National Capital of Delhi, (1999) 1 SCC 330 and State of U.P. and others v. Ram Swarup Saroj, (2000) 3 SCC 699. It has been held therein that if the selection process is over, select list has expired, no relief can be granted by the Court at a belated stage.

In the instant case, as the select list expired on 20.8.1997, the question for considering the case of the petitioner for the post of Trade Tax Officer could not arise. This, first representation for seeking the said relief was much belated i.e., on 4.3.1998.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India docs not envisage for negative equality nor does it meant to perpetuate any illegality. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted the benefit of certain bylaws or orders, that does not confer any legal right on the petitioners. [Vide Chandigarh Administration and another v. Jagjit Singh and another, AIR 1995 SC 705; Smt Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1996 SC 540; Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mai Jain and others, (1997) 1 SCC 35; State of Harvana and others v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997) 3 SCC 321; Faridabad of Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services and others, (1997) 7 SCC 752; State of Punjab and others v. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal, (1999) 9 SCC 240; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh, AIR 2001 SC 1877; Union of India and others v. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2001 SC 1877; Finance Commissioner (Revenue) v. Gulab Chandra and another, 2001 AIR SCW 4774; Yogesh Kumar and others v. Government of NCT, Delhi and others, AIR 2003 SC 1241; Union of India and another v. International Trading Company and another, AIR 2003 SC 3983 and M/s. Anand Button Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, 2005 AIR SCW 67].

Thus, in view of the fact that some other persons had been appointed on a better post subsequent to the expiry of the select list, would not create any legal right in favour of the petitioner.

In view of the above, we do not find any force in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed.