Service Law – U.P. Public Service Commission invited applications for the post of Personal Assistant in the year 1999 – The erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh was reorganised into the State of Uttar Pradesh and the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) on 09.11.2000 – Appellants though selected (i.e. on 03.03.2000) before the reorganisation of the State, however, were appointed after the reorganisation in the year 2001 – The State of U.P. provided option to appellants to serve either in the State of U.P. or the State of Uttarakhand – Appellants opted for the State of Uttarakhand – High Court held that the appellants remained employees of the State of U.P – Held: High Court overlooked the guidelines issued by the Central Government – Para (5)(c) of the guidelines refers to cases of selections where results were published prior to the cut-off date (09.11.2000) but appointment letters were not issued to candidates – In the guidelines it was further stipulated that where panels had been recently published, the selected candidates were to be notified that they may not be required beyond the appointed day (09.11.2000) in the State of U.P. and would be liable to serve the successor State of Uttaranchal – In instant case, appellants were declared to be employees of the State of U.P. by the High Court without noticing that the appointment letters issued to them clearly stipulated that their services could be transferred to the successor State of Uttarakhand – Furthermore, the Central Government permitted the transfer of employees on the basis of the mutual consent of both the States – Pursuant thereto, services of the appellants were transferred and absorbed by the State of Uttarakhand with the mutual consent of both the States – No infirmity in the procedure adopted by both the States in transfer of employees – Thus, Judgment of the High Court set aside – U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000.
AND ORS.
Appellants were selected for the post of Personal Assistant on 3.03.2000 in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Meanwhile, the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh was reorganised into the State of Uttar Pradesh and the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) on 9 November 2000. Thereafter, appellants were appointed as Personal Assistants in the year 2001. The appellants opted to serve the State of Uttarakhand. High Court held that the appellants remained employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Hence, appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court has overlooked the guidelines issued by the Central Government on 13 September 2000. Para (5)(c) of the guidelines refers to cases of selections where results were published prior to the cut-off date but appointment letters were not issued to candidates. Para (5) (c) contemplates that recruitments would be kept in abeyance until final allocation orders were made. This was to be so even where panels were drawn but not given effect to. The High Court has directed its attention to a sole consideration, namely whether there existed any statutory provision for transferring an employee from one State to another State. The appellants were declared to be employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh by the High Court without noticing that the appointment letters issued to them clearly stipulated that their services could transferred to the successor State of Uttarakhand. Such a transfer took place with the consent of both the States. [Para 18] [372-B-D]
2. The State of Uttarakhand was created with the enactment of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 which reorganized the State of Uttar Pradesh into two states namely, the successor State of Uttar Pradesh and the State of Uttarakhand. Under the Act, 9 November 2000 was the appointed day. The Central Government, by its letter dated 15 September 2004, permitted the transfer of employees on the basis of the mutual consent of both the States. The State of U.P. gave options to existing employees appointed before 9 November 2000 for transfer of their services to the State of Uttarakhand. However, despite those efforts, the State of Uttrakhand was facing acute shortage of officers and a number of vacancies continued in the newly formed State of Uttarakhand. Hence, various employees who were already employed with the State of U.P. prior to the appointed day were provided with a choice of permanent transfer of service to the State of Uttarakhand. In the meantime, in the case of persons such as the appellants where recruitments were completed but appointment letters were not issued the appointment letters indicated that their services may be allotted either to the State of Uttar Pradesh or the State of Uttarakhand after the appointed day. The services of the appellants were transferred and absorbed by the State of Uttarakhand with the mutual consent of both the States. Since then the appellants have been continuing as employees of the State of Uttarakhand. There is no infirmity in the procedure adopted by both the states in the transfer of employees, on the basis of mutual consent. [Paras 19, 20] [372-D-H; 373-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.