NARENDRA PRATAP SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Narendra Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. & Another - WRIT - A No. 11662 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 7434 (13 December 2005)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11662 of 1999

Narendra Pratap Singh

Versus

State of U.P. & Anr..

*****

Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition has been filed for a direction to the Commission to recommend the names of those candidates from the waiting list who are actually available for appointment and not to make any appointment on the basis of the list submitted by the Commission on 20th March, 1999.

The U.P. Public Service Commission conducted a Combined State Uppar Subordinate Services Examination, 1994 in which the petitioner appeared and was called for interview on 28th October, 1996. The result of the aforesaid examination was declared by the Commission on 14th November, 1996 and recommendations were made to the State Government in respect of 384 candidates. It has been stated in the petition that after the necessary allotments were made by the State Government in 1998, 63 candidates whose names had been recommended by the Commission did not join their posts. Accordingly, a communication dated 23rd July, 1998 was sent by the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. to the Secretary, Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad mentioning the names of those 63 candidates who had not joined and the Commission was requested to recommend the names of candidates from waiting list to fill up these vacant posts. The Commission then recommended the names of 63 persons in order of merit from the waiting list on 20th March, 1999. It has been contended in the petition that the exercise carried out by the Commission was arbitrary inasmuch as it should have sent the names of only such candidates from the waiting list who were available for appointment and should not have sent the names of the candidates in order of merit from the waiting list. According to the petitioner, he belonged to the backward class and if the names of seven candidates belonging to the backward class who were not available for appointment, was excluded, then the name of the petitioner would have been recommended for selection.

We have heard Miss Pooja Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was obligatory on the past of the U.P. Public Service Commission to have scrutinised the names of the candidates from the waiting list and should have sent the names of only those candidates to the State Government who were available for appointment.

In the counter affidavit it has been stated that a decision was taken by the Commission that it was not obligatory on the part of the Commission to enquire from every individual candidate whose names are included in the waiting list as to whether they are desirous of joining the post or not inasmuch as the function of the Commission is to merely recommend the names of the candidates from the waiting list in order of merit. The State Government had asked the Commission to send the names of 63 candidates from the waiting list and the Commission thereafter sent the names of the candidates from the waiting list in order of merit. On the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit, it has been urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petition should be dismissed.

The dispute in the present petition relates to the combined examination held in the year 1994. The name of the petitioner did not appear in the main list. It is his contention that in case the waiting list was sent by the Commission after excluding certain names of those candidates who were not desirous of joining the post, his name would have been included. We express our inability to accept such a contention. The Commission could not have withheld the names of candidates from the waiting list merely because they had expressed their inability to join the post. It was obligatory on the part of the Commission to have sent the names of the candidates from the waiting list strictly in order of merit and this is what the Commission did. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the procedure adopted by the Commission.

We, therefore, did not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

Dated: 13.12.2005

GS

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.