9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to judgment of Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Letters Patent Appeal regarding recommendations made by UPPSC for posts in Hill Cadre in the context of new reservation policy of Uttaranchal. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the judgment of the Allahabad High Court regarding the recommendations made by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) for posts in the Hill Cadre, now under the State of Uttaranchal. The High Court had directed the State of Uttaranchal to appoint the selected candidates based on UPPSC recommendations, considering them binding on the new state. The Supreme Court analyzed various constitutional provisions and the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, concluding that the High Court's decision was incorrect. The Court emphasized that the denial to accept UPPSC recommendations by Uttaranchal implied no appointments could be made based on those recommendations. 2. The Supreme Court further criticized the High Court's misinterpretation of the Government order and Section 78 of the Act, stating that the recommendations were not binding on the Uttaranchal Government. The Court clarified that the High Court's reasoning was flawed, leading to an untenable judgment. The judgment was overturned, highlighting the legal position and dismissing the High Court's decision. 3. The Court addressed the issue of selectees seeking appointments after the judgment, emphasizing that the High Court erred in directing appointments beyond the advertised vacancies. It was noted that the select list's validity had expired, and filling vacancies beyond the advertised number would violate constitutional rights. The Court cited relevant case laws to support the principle that inclusion in a select list does not guarantee appointment as a matter of right. 4. The Supreme Court critiqued the High Court's reliance on Office Memorandums and the erroneous interpretation of the select list's validity. The Court highlighted that the select list was valid for only one year, as per the Uttar Pradesh Cadre Rules, 1992. The judgment emphasized that appointments made beyond the advertised vacancies would be discriminatory and against constitutional principles of equality. 5. In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench, emphasizing that the select list was no longer valid, and the State was not obligated to appoint non-official respondents. The Court clarified that the relaxation in age granted by the earlier judgment was applicable only when fresh applications were invited, which was not the case in this situation. The appeal was allowed without costs, overturning the lower court's decisions.
|
