Sanjay Kumar Singh and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

The petitioners seek benefit of the direction given by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Singh and Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Anr. [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 165 of 2005] and Ors. connected writ petitions, decided on 9th January, 2007 wherein the Apex Court in paragraph 42 of the judgment has given the following direction:

However, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, we deem it proper to issue the following directions to do complete justice on the facts of the case:

(a) If the aggregate of raw marks in the written examination and the marks in the interview of any petitioner is less than that of the last selected candidate in the respective category, he will not be entitled to any relief (for example, the petitioners in WP(C) No. 165/2005 belonging to the Category ''BC'' have secured raw marks of 361 and 377 respectively in the written examination, whereas the last five of the selected candidates in that category have secured raw marks of 390, 391, 397, 438 and 428 respectively. Even after adding the interview marks, the marks of the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 165/2005 is less than the marks of the selected candidates).

(b) Where the aggregate of raw marks in the written examination and interview marks of any petitioner, is more than the aggregate of the raw marks in the written examination and interview marks of the last selected candidate in his category, he shall be considered for appointment in the respective category by counting his appointment against future vacancies. (For example, we find that petitioner Archna Rani, one of the petitioners in WP (C) No. 467/2005 has secured 384 raw marks which is more than the raw marks secured by the last five selected candidates [347, 337, 336, 383 and 335] under the SC category and even after adding the interview marks, her marks are more than the five selected candidates hence, she should be considered for appointment). This relief will be available only to such of the petitioners who have approached this Court and the High Court before 31st August, 2005.

The aforementioned benefit is available to those persons who have approached the Apex Court and the High Court before 31st August, 2005. In the present case, the petitioners had not approached this Court or the Apex Court before 31st August, 2005, therefore, the relief for appointment as claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted to them.

Further grievance of the petitioners that the respondent Nos. 3 to 22 and Ors. similar situate candidates are being appointed in contravention of the aforesaid directions given by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, is worth consideration. Counsel for the petitioners clarifies that once the Hon''ble Supreme Court has confined the relief to the persons who had approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court or the Hon''ble High Court on or before 31st August, 2005 only, the Public Service Commission was under legal obligation to strictly adhere to the said directions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and any person who had not approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court or the Hon''ble High Court on or before 31st August, 2005 questioning the system of scaling adopted, was not entitled to claim benefit of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra).

Mr. Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the said respondents has submitted that the Hon''ble Supreme Court has not laid down any law as suggested and the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is to be implemented and not the directions.

We are afraid that such a contention cannot be accepted by us inasmuch as any direction issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court has to be strictly complied with by all subordinate authorities without any deviation. We may further clarify that in case any difficulty was being faced by any candidate/authority of the State, it was always open to them to approach the Hon''ble Supreme Court for such modification of its direction as may be necessary. In absence of any modification having been granted by the Hon''ble Supreme Court qua the confining of the benefit in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra), it is neither open to the Commission nor to this Court to dilute the directions or to act contrary thereto. In case the said respondents feel aggrieved, they must seek modification of the order from the Supreme Court but we cannot issue any direction to any authority to act in contravention of the directions issued by the Supreme Court nor can we modify the same. The Public Service Commission is under legal obligation to enforce the aforesaid directions given by the Hon''ble Supreme Court unless they are modified on an application made by person concerned. We may record that Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Counsel for the private respondent Nos. 3 to 22 could not demonstrate before this Court that the said respondents had approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court or the Hon''ble High Court for the purposes of questioning the method of scaling prior to 31st August, 2005. In such circumstances, we have no other option but to hold that the recommendations of the Commission qua these respondents 3 to 22 require reconsideration so as to brought in conformity with the directions issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh (supra).

Thus, in view of the above, we direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to reconsider the issue as to whether the aforesaid respondent Nos. 3 to 22 and Ors. similar situate candidates or either of them had approached this Court or the Hon''ble Supreme Court on or before 31st August, 2005 raising the issue of scaling or not without being confused with the issues involved in Anr. case of Malik Mazhar Sultan and Another Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and Others, as the said judgment had been given full effect while making appointments qua the selection of 2003 and was confined to the issue of maximum age fixed only. The aforesaid exercise may be undertaken by the Commission expeditiously and fresh orders may be passed in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court , preferably within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before its Secretary.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.