LexASHWANI KUMAR SINGH versus U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH v. U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. JULY 14, 2003 B [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] Service Law: Appointments-Examination conducted by State Public Service C Commission-Vacancies due to non-joining of some candidates-Appointment by fresh selection ignoring candidates in the waiting fol-Challenge to-- Rejected by the High Court-On appeal, Held: since a policy decision was taken by the employer in appointment of the candidates from select list as per merit, same could not be construed lightly unless totally irrational! D tainted with malafides-/t would not be appropriate to disturb subsequent appointments. Seniority-Claim of-Held, the candidates selected to the higher post earlier would be logically senior to those promoted to the post later. E Observations of the Court-To be read in the context in which they appear. Appellants appeared in the combined services examination conducted by the State Public Service Commission - respondent. They have indicated their preference for the posts of Treasury Officer/Accounts Officer/Assistant F Accounts Officer. Since their position in the merit list was low, one of the appellants was appointed as Assistant Accounts Officer but the other appellant could not be appointed. Some of the selected candidates did not join the service and vacancies remained unfilled. But respondents preferred to carry forward the vacancies and filled them from the select list of the subsequent examination G allegedly ignoring the interest of the candidates in the waiting list Appellants challenged the selection by filing representations to respondents and later filed writ petitions before the High Court, which were rejected by the High Court. Hence the present appeals. It was contended for the appellants that the respondents ignored the law II 528 - ' ,, A.K. SINGH v. U.P.S.C. 529 laid down by the Court in .Jai Narain Ram v. State of UP. and Ors., 1199611 A sec 332 by not offering the posts to candidates in the waiting list; and that one of the appellant was affected adversely since candidates appointed to the posts as a result of subsequent examination became senior to him. On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that since the posts fell vacant on account of non-joining of some of the selected candidates and the B vacancies were filled up subsequently; and that .Jai Narain 's case has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without C discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of the Court must be read in the context in which they appear. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark into lengthy discussions, but D the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes.1532-F-GI .Jai Narain Ram v. State of U.P. and Ors., 119961 I SCC 332, distinguished. E London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton, (1951) AC 737; Home Office, v. Dorset Yacht Co., 1197012 All ER 294; Shepherd Homes Ltd v. Sandham, (No.2) (1971) 1 WLR 1062 and Herrington v. British Railways Board, (1972) 2 WLR 537, referred to. 1.2. A policy decision was taken to appoint candidates who had opted for Treasury Officer/Accounts Officer iftheir names were included in the first 40 of the merit list. The appellant was not so included and the position is worse in the case of other appellant. If the em ploy er fixes a cut off position, same is not to be lightly tinkered with unless it is totally irrational or tainted with ma/ajides. Employer in its wisdom may consider a particular range of selection to be appropriate. It has not been shown as to how the fixation is irrational, much less ma/afide. It is noticed that the unfilled posts were carried forward to the next year and have been filled up on the basis of selection made by the Commission. Accepting the prayer of the appellants would mean that F G the position which has assumed a sort of finality for more than a decade would H 530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R. A be unsettled. Persons who have been appointe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.