9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er in State of Uttaranchal and Ors. v. Sidharth Srivastava and Ors. AIR2003SC4062 connected issues were considered. 3. The factual background in a nutshell is as follows:- Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (in short 'UPPSC') published advertisement inviting applications for 544 posts of J.E. Civil/Technical (507 Civil + 37 Technical). The result of selection was published on 7-1-2000. The UPPSC sent its recommendations to the U.P. Government on 30-10-2000. The U.P. Government forwarded the recommendations on 31-10-2000 to the Chief Engineer's Office, Hill Cadre, Almora. The separate State of Uttaranchal came into existence on 9-11-2000. U.P. Government forwarded the UPPSC recommendations in respect of posts in Hill C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t did not say that no appointment shall be given on the basis of the recommendations of UPPSC. If the Government of Uttaranchal has denied to accept the recommendations of UPPSC, essentially it follows that no appointment could be given. This apart in the very order in paragraph 2 it is specifically stated that therefore, in this regard after thorough consideration it has been decided that the candidates recommended by the UPPSC may not be appointed in various Departments of the Government of Uttaranchal. Thus, the reason given by the High Court that the Government of Uttaranchal though denied to accept the recommendations of UPPSC but did not deny to give appointment and as such the said Government order could be ignored, does not stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on-official respondents are placed, we would like to say that in case the non- official respondents apply as and when the applications are invited for selection either by UPPSC or by the Uttaranchal State Public Service Commission in future within a period of three years, the UPPSC or the Uttaranchal State Public Service Commission shall consider them for selection subject to their satisfying all other eligibility requirements but relaxing the upper age-limit. 6. After this Court's judgment, the candidates whose names had been included in the select list approached the State of Uttar Pradesh to appoint them. However, their requests were turned down. Challenging order of the State Government, the writ application was filed which was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... candidates who had not been appointed by the State of Uttaranchal, were appointed by of State of U.P. as sub- registrar and Passengers Goods Officers in the Transport Department. There could not be differential treatment so far as the writ-petitioners are concerned. No fresh advertisement has been issued since 1998 though period of more than 6 years has lapsed. 9. The High Court accepted that Hill sub-cadre stood abolished. But held that currency of select list had not expired and the vacancies could be filled up. High Court noted that appointments beyond number advertised would amount to filling up future vacancies which is impermissible. It also noted that mere inclusion in the select list did not confer any enforceable right to be se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is was not a case of mistake and/or that the select list was in force. Even Uttar Pradesh Cadre Rules, 1992 clearly stipulates that the list was valid only for one year. The High Court erroneously placed reliance on the Office Memorandum dated 31.1.1994 and 15.12.1999. 12. The Office Memorandums had no application to the facts of the case. Even otherwise, the Office Memorandums clearly indicated that the select list is valid only for one year. It is of relevance to note that the U.P. PSC had prepared two lists one for the plan and the other for the hill cadre. Further, in the earlier case at para 23 grievance had been made that Uttaranchal Government had made appointments by picking up some candidates selected by U.P. PCS. This Court obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Jammu Kashmir and Anr. (1993)2SCC573 , Union of India v. S.S. Uppal [1996]1SCR230 , Hanman Prasad v. Union of India (1996)10SCC742 , Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR1997SC2280 , Syndicate Bank and Ors. v. Shankar Paul and Ors. (1997)IILLJ814SC , Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra and Ors. (1997)10SCC264 , Punjab State Electricity Board v. Seema 1999 SCC (L S) 629; All India SC ST Employees Association v. A. Arthur Jeen [2001]2SCR1183 , Vinodan T. v. University of Kalikut [2002]3SCR530 , S. Renuka v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [2002]2SCR697 , and Baitariani Gramiya Bank v. Pallab Kumar and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 4248. 15. Even if in some cases appointments have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
