2019 (9) TMI 1707 - SC - Indian Laws

The result of written examination for the post of Technical Assistant-Group-C Agriculture Department upheld - selection process subsequent to the written examination quashed - seeking direction to Principal Secretary State of U.P. to send requisition to the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission on the basis of quantifiable data and cadre strength as well as actual persons working in different categories so that the interview may be conducted afresh. HELD THAT - The revised requisition dated 20.08.2014 and the revised notification of the UP Public Service Commission itself were in excess of the permissible limits of reservation as per UP Reservation Act 1994. We cannot pass direction to accommodate the surplus candidates as that would be in excess of the permissible limit as prescribed by the Act and would be in violation of prescribed limits of reservation as per the statutory provisions of UP Reservation Act 1994. In exercise of power Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India if we are to issue direction to appoint 906 candidates it will be crossing the limits of 50% reservation which would be violation of the constitutional provisions and the UP Reservation Act 1994. Even assuming that the Respondent State was not diligent in carrying out the proper quantifiable data of existing working strength in different categories and ascertaining the vacancies position under different categories it needs no reiteration that a wrong cannot be corrected by committing another wrong. It is fairly well-settled that the selected candidates do not have any indefeasible right to be appointed. As held in State of Bihar and Ors. v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra 2006 (9) TMI 569 - SUPREME COURT merely because the names of candidates were included in the provisional select list they do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed. Merely because UP Public Service Commission has recommended the names of 906 candidates they do not acquire any indefeasible right for being appointed. Article 142 of the Constitution of India confers wide power upon the Supreme Court to do complete justice between the parties. Though the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 142 are very wide the same cannot be exercised to pass an order inconsistent with express statutory provisions of substantive law. In Ramji Veerji Patel and Ors. v. Revenue Divisional Officer and Ors. 2011 (11) TMI 880 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court held that the power Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised very carefully and sparingly. The power Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India can be exercised so as to do complete justice between the parties. In the case in hand as per the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act 1994 specific percentages of vacancies have been reserved for different categories viz. (a) Scheduled Castes-21% (b) Scheduled Tribes-2% and (c) OBC-27%. In any recruitment this statutory permissible limit of reservation not exceeding 50% has to be maintained. The power Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to supplant the statutory provision under the UP Reservation Act 1994. In exercise of power Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India no direction can be issued to the State of UP to issue appointment orders to the 906 candidates. The private Respondents/intervenors and 906 candidates who were not issued appointment orders and those who filed writ petitions before the High Court shall be granted age relaxation as one-time measure to participate in the upcoming recruitment. Age relaxation is strictly a one-time measure. The common impugned judgment and batch of writ petitions is set aside and these appeals are allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Revised requisition and office memorandum rectifying category-wise vacancies.
2. Allegations of arbitrariness in the revised office memorandum.
3. Whether the revised office memorandum amounts to changing the rules of the game during the selection process.
4. Estoppel against unsuccessful candidates challenging the selection process.
5. Legality of the regularization of diploma holders.
6. Prejudice caused to General/Unreserved category candidates.
7. Entitlement of 906 candidates for appointment orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Revised Requisition and Office Memorandum Rectifying Category-wise Vacancies:
The revised requisition dated 20.08.2014 and the Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2014 were issued to rectify wrongful calculations of category-wise vacancies to comply with the UP Reservation Act, 1994. The revised requisition was necessary to correct the earlier miscalculation that had wrongly counted diploma holders against the OBC quota instead of the General quota. The revised requisition aimed to ensure compliance with the statutory reservation percentages.

2. Allegations of Arbitrariness in the Revised Office Memorandum:
The revised memorandum was not arbitrary but a rectification of the earlier wrongful calculation. The revised requisition was made after a detailed inquiry and consultation with relevant departments, ensuring it aligned with the UP Reservation Act, 1994. The revised requisition did not change the total number of vacancies but only corrected the distribution among categories.

3. Whether the Revised Office Memorandum Amounts to Changing the Rules of the Game During the Selection Process:
The revised requisition did not alter the eligibility criteria or the selection process but merely corrected the category-wise distribution of vacancies. This correction was necessary to comply with the reservation policy and did not amount to changing the rules of the game. The principle that rules of the game cannot be changed after the selection process had commenced was not applicable here.

4. Estoppel Against Unsuccessful Candidates Challenging the Selection Process:
The private respondents participated in the interview with full knowledge of the revised vacancies and cannot now challenge the selection process after being unsuccessful. The principle of estoppel applies, preventing them from contesting the revised notification and selection process.

5. Legality of the Regularization of Diploma Holders:
The High Court's finding that diploma holders should not have been absorbed against the General category was incorrect. The diploma holders were correctly counted against the General quota as there was no provision for reservation for Backward Classes in the concerned department at the time of their absorption. The revised requisition merely rectified the earlier wrongful calculation.

6. Prejudice Caused to General/Unreserved Category Candidates:
The revised requisition did not prejudice General category candidates as it was necessary to comply with the statutory reservation percentages. The High Court's observation that 3303 General category candidates were deprived of appearing in the interview was not substantiated by evidence. The selection process was based on merit and compliance with the reservation policy.

7. Entitlement of 906 Candidates for Appointment Orders:
The 906 candidates who were not issued appointment orders were ranked lower in the merit list and their appointment would exceed the permissible reservation limits under the UP Reservation Act, 1994. The Supreme Court cannot issue directions under Article 142 to appoint these candidates as it would violate statutory reservation limits.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, upholding the revised requisition and selection process. The private respondents and 906 candidates were granted age relaxation as a one-time measure to participate in the upcoming recruitment. The appeals were allowed, and all intervenors/impleading applications were dismissed.