LexDONESH RAJPUT & ORS. versus PRADEEP KUMAR SHUKLA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 617 DONESH RAJPUT & ORS. A v. PRADEEP KUMAR SHUKLA & ORS. I.A. NOS.4-5 OF 2013, I.A. NOS.5-6 OF 2014 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) N0.269 OF 2012 B IN SLP (C) N0.20558 OF 2009 SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND C SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.) Uttar Pradesh Pharmacists Service Rules, 1980: rr. 15, 16 - Appointment - Post of Pharmacist - Direction passed in Santosh Kumar Mishra case that benefit for appointment D for the post of Pharmacist should be extended to similarly placed persons - This implied that those who responded to the advertisement invited for filling up the post of Pharmacists, were to be considered only by following the procedure prescribed u!rr. 14 and 15 of the Rules - Without E following the relevant Rules and the requirements contained in the advertisement, no candidate can be considered for appointment - If they had not responded to the said advertisement by filing the appropriate applications, they cannot subsequently be heard to say that they were all F similarly placed and that therefore, the State Government should consider them as similarly placed candidates. Disposing of the IAs and contempt petitions, the Court HELD: 1. In the letter issued by Principal Secretary, Law dated 29.4.2013, a tabular statement was shown wherein the total number of posts of Pharmacists in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 2000 after the division G 617 H 618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R. A of the State, total sanctioned posts from 1998 to 2013, total posts on which the Pharmacist were working in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 2000 after the division of the State, the number of vacant posts resulting due to promotions and retirements from the year 1998 to 2013, B actual number of posts on which Pharmacists were working in the State, the number of newly appointed Pharmacists, total number of posts on which the pharmacists were working up to the year 2013 and the total number of vacant posts available were disclosed. c After furnishing the relevant data for the various categories, the letter dated 27.9.2013 stated that the total number of vacant posts was 950. The instant I.A. was filed by the State Government seeking direction to the Principal Secretary, Law to recall his order dated 0 27 .9.2013 and pass appropriate order to declare the correct number of vacancies available for the post of Pharmacist as the number of vacancies arrived at 950 in the report of the Principal Secretary dated 27.9.2013, did not reflect the correct figure as the said figure came to be arrived at by the Principal Secretary based on the E information furnished by the then Director who failed to gather the total number of vacancies in the Department from all the Districts with the matching information available at the Headquarters and, therefore, it required reconsideration. It was also stated that the said Director F was proceeded against by way of disciplinary action for furnishing wrong information to the Principal Secretary. Since the State of Uttar Pradesh came forward with valid reasons as to why the number of vacancies mentioned in the report of the Principal Secretary did not reflect the G correct position, the State should, be allowed to verify the available vacancies. Granting such permission would also benefit the aspiring applicants for whom the benefit has been conferred in the judgment of this Court in Santosh Kumar Mishra. Therefore, the Principal Secretary H is directed to recall his order dated 27.9.2013, insofar as DONESH RAJPUT v. PRADEEP KUMAR SHUKLA 619 it related to the ascertainment of the number of vacancies. A [Paras 11, 16 to 19] [630-F-H; 631-A, 8, E-H] 2. In another I.A., the prayer was for clarification/ modification of order dated 15. 7 .2014, passed in Contempt Petition which stated that the existing vacancies shall be filled by the State Government from those candidates whose application forms were received B by the Department pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2007 and who were found to be eligible. The said report came to be submitted in compliance of order dated 29.4.2013, wherein while considering the grievances of C the various Contempt Petitioners which was referred to in order dated 29.4.2013, those petitioners were directed to appear before the Principal Secretary and state their claims with a further direction to the Principal Secretary to resolve
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.