U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5039 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18602/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18602/1999)
Petitioner: U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors.
Respondent: Vijay Kumar Gupta
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5039 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18602/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18602/1999)
Judges: B.N. KIRPAL & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 08, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Articles 14, 16 – Appointments – Posts of cleaner – Select list prepared after interview – Before letter of appointment could be issued, state imposing ban on appointment – High Court, on writ, directing appointment on grounds that ban has been struck down – Justification. Held that without mala fide or arbitrariness, policy decision cannot even be challenged. Pardeep Kumar Mishra’s case and judgment under appeal, both held running counter to Shankarasan Dash (JT 1991 (2) SC 380). Hence, overruled and set aside. (Para 4)
Cases Reffered:
1. Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India (JT 1991 (2) SC 380) (Para 4)
2. Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Others v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow and Others reported in ((1991) 2 UPLBEC 796) (Para 3)
2. Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Others v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow and Others reported in ((1991) 2 UPLBEC 796) (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. On 20th May, 1989, the appellants issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment against 50 posts of cleaners in the workshop falling in the Kanpur region. Applications were received, interviews held and a select list was prepared in the month of November, 1989. The name of the respondent figured as one of the selected candidates.
3. Before any letter of appointment could be issued, the State of U.P. imposed a ban on appointment of any person. Pursuant thereto, the respondent filed a writ petition for a direction that he should be appointed against the vacancy which had been advertised. The single judge following an earlier decision of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in the case of Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Others v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow and Others reported in ((1991) 2 UPLBEC 796), came to the conclusion that the ban which had been imposed had been struck down in Pradeep Kumar Mishra’s case and, therefore, the respondent had a right to be appointed to the post notwithstanding the ban by the government.
4. An appeal filed against the said decision was dismissed by the division bench. In our opinion, neither the decision under appeal nor the earlier decision in Pradeep Kumar Mishra’s case have been rightly decided. A Constitution bench of this Court in Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India (JT 1991 (2) SC 380), came to the conclusion that a candidate who has been included in the merit list has no indefeasible right to appointment even if a vacancy exists. Two decisions of the Allahabad High Court, namely, one under appeal and the earlier decision in P.K. Mishra’s case clearly run counter to the decision of this Court in Shankarasan’s case (supra). We fail to understand as to how a policy decision of the government refraining from making any recruitment or imposing a ban in respect thereof can even be challenged, leave alone quashed by the High Court. It has not been shown that the action of the appellants in not appointing the respondent was for any mala fide reason or appellants acted arbitrarily. It has also not been shown to us that any one junior to the respondent, has been appointed.
5. Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. No costs.
1. Special leave granted.
2. On 20th May, 1989, the appellants issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment against 50 posts of cleaners in the workshop falling in the Kanpur region. Applications were received, interviews held and a select list was prepared in the month of November, 1989. The name of the respondent figured as one of the selected candidates.
3. Before any letter of appointment could be issued, the State of U.P. imposed a ban on appointment of any person. Pursuant thereto, the respondent filed a writ petition for a direction that he should be appointed against the vacancy which had been advertised. The single judge following an earlier decision of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in the case of Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Others v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow and Others reported in ((1991) 2 UPLBEC 796), came to the conclusion that the ban which had been imposed had been struck down in Pradeep Kumar Mishra’s case and, therefore, the respondent had a right to be appointed to the post notwithstanding the ban by the government.
4. An appeal filed against the said decision was dismissed by the division bench. In our opinion, neither the decision under appeal nor the earlier decision in Pradeep Kumar Mishra’s case have been rightly decided. A Constitution bench of this Court in Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India (JT 1991 (2) SC 380), came to the conclusion that a candidate who has been included in the merit list has no indefeasible right to appointment even if a vacancy exists. Two decisions of the Allahabad High Court, namely, one under appeal and the earlier decision in P.K. Mishra’s case clearly run counter to the decision of this Court in Shankarasan’s case (supra). We fail to understand as to how a policy decision of the government refraining from making any recruitment or imposing a ban in respect thereof can even be challenged, leave alone quashed by the High Court. It has not been shown that the action of the appellants in not appointing the respondent was for any mala fide reason or appellants acted arbitrarily. It has also not been shown to us that any one junior to the respondent, has been appointed.
5. Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. No costs.
