Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 – rr.8(2), 18(4) – Number of appointments to be made – Appointment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the State Higher Judicial Service – Appellant participated in the selection process for ‘Direct Recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service-2016’ – Thirty-seven posts under the General Category to be filled – Appellant placed at thirty-eight position in the Merit List – One candidate out of the thirty-seven candidates recommended by the High Court did not receive approval from the Hon’ble Governor/State Government, leaving the actual recruitment under the General Category to thirty-six, with one vacancy remaining – Claim of the appellant that since he was the next candidate in line, he should automatically have been recommended for appointment – However, the said vacant post was carried forward for the next recruitment cycle – High Court rejected the claim of appellant – Correctness:
Held: If there is refusal to intervene, an unjust outcome would be perpetuated – Denial of recommendation and consequential appointment of the appellant not justified – r.8(2) of the Rules does not apply to the situation confronting the High Court upon the rejection of one candidature by the Hon’ble Governor/State Government from out of the communicated list – First portion of r.8(2) contemplates that the said Rule is attracted only when the number of ‘selected direct recruits available for appointment’ is less than the number of direct recruit vacancies, i.e., vacant posts available/advertised – In the absence of this condition being satisfied, the High Court not under obligation to act in terms of r.8(2) – Terminology employed in r.8(2) is ‘selected direct recruits available for appointment’ – Provision fundamentally negates any option of approving the High Court’s invocation of r.8(2), as the said Rule itself is cognizant of availability for appointment – Term ‘direct recruits’ occurring in r.18(4) also need to be construed bearing the other Rules in mind, including the phraseology engrafted in r.8(2) – r.8(2) could have been pressed into service when, exempli gratia, vacancies advertised were ten, but only nine candidates figured in the Merit List, leaving one clear vacancy, which would be filled-up from the Nyayik Sewa by way of promotion, and also adjusted in the next recruitment cycle for direct recruits correspondingly, as per the proviso to r.8(2) – Impugned judgment set aside – High Court and the State Government to process and issue appointment letter to the appellant – Seniority to be reckoned notionally as part of 2016 Advertisement – Constitution of India – Art.233, 234, 235, 236. [Paras 21, 22, 25]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. 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.