KISHOR KUMAR & ORS. versus PRADEEP SHUKLA & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 2 S.C.R. 251 · Decided: 29-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 2 S.C.R. 251 
KISHOR KUMAR & ORS. 
v. 
PRADEEP SHUKLA & ORS. 
(S.L.P.(C) Nos. 22590 of2011) 
FEBRUARY 29, 2012 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
U.P. PROCEDURE FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT OF 
GROUP 'C' POSTS (OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF PUBLIC 
A 
SERVICE COMMISSION) RULES, 2000: 
C 
r. 15(2) - Appointment to 766 posts of Pharmacists 
advertised on 12. 11. 2007 - Held: As has been held in 
Santosh Kumar Mishra's case, the dec;ision taken by State 
Government to accommodate the diploma-holders in batches 0 
against their respective years could be discontinued at a later 
stage, but not to the disadvantage those who had been denied 
the opportunity of being appointed by virtue of the same Rules 
- The subsequent policy could be introduced after the private 
respondents and those similarly situated persons were 
E 
accommodated - All candidates who were similarly situated 
as the original petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of 
the judgment in Santosh Kumar Mishra's case. 
The instant special leave petitions arose out of the 
writ petitions questioning the select list prepared on 
F 
14.2.2011 after the decision of the Supreme Court in 
Santosh Kumar Mishra's case, the subject matter whereof 
was the advertisement dated 12.11.200rfor filling up 766 
vacancies of pharmacists in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 
The case of the petitioners was that despsite having 
G 
better merit, they were not selected for filling up the 766 
vacancies. The case of the respondents was that as per 
r.15(2) of the U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment of 
Group 'C' Posts (Outside the Purview of Public Service 
251 
H 
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 
A Commission) Rules, 2000, diploma-holders were to be 
appointed against the vacancies which became avail,;:ible 
in each recruitment year, by first appointing batchwise 
those pharmacists who had obtained their diplomas 
earlier, irrespective of their merit. 
B 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
HELD: 
The matter has already been decided in the case of 
c Santosh Kumar Mishra* wherein it has been directed by 
this Court that the candidates could be appointed against 
the vacancies in order of their inter-se seniority as per the 
vacancies available in each year. It was directed that the 
decision taken by the State Government to accommodate 
0 the diploma holders in batches against their respective 
years, could be discontinued at a later stage, but not to 
the disadvantage to those who had been denied the 
opportunity of being appointed by virtue of the same 
Rules. This Court observed that the same decision which 
E was taken to deprive the private respondents from being 
appointed, could not be discarded once again to their 
disadvantage to prevent them from being appointed, 
introducing the concept of merit selection at a later stage. 
It was further directed that the subsequent policy could 
be introduced after the private respondents and those 
F similarly situated persons have been accommodated. 
Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order 
of the Division Bench of the Hi_gh Court. All the pending 
applications shall stand disposed of by virtue of this 
judgment. All candidates, who were similarly situated as 
G the original petitioners, would be entitled to the benefit 
of the judgment delivered in Santosh Kumar Mishra's 
case. [para 8, 12 and 14] [256-D-F; 257-E, G] 
*State of UP. & Anr. Vs. Santosh Kumar Mishra & Ors. 
H 
KISHOR KUMAR & .ORS. v. PRADEEP SHUKLA & 
253 
ORS. 
2010 (9) SCR 942 = (2010) 9 sec 52 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
2010 (9 ) SCR 942 
relied on 
para 8 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No. 
B 
22590 of 2011. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 12.07.2011 oft he High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in 
Contempt Petition No. 2209 of 2009. 
WITH 
C 
SLP (C) Nos. 27086 of 2011 & 4130 of 2012. 
Mahalakshmi Pavani, Mukesh Verma, Pawan Shukla, 
Yash Pal Dhingra, T. Mahipal, Dr. S. Bhardwaj, Archana P. 
Dave, Mridule Ray Bhardwaj, Veera Kaul Singh, C.J. Sahu, 
D 
Jasbir Singh Malik, S.K. Sabharwal, Shree Pal Singh, 
Niranjana Singh, K.L. Janjani, SaJpal Singh,Vidhi International, 
Anjani Kumar Mishra, Sunita Sharma for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. These three Special Leave 
E 
Petitions are directed against the judgment and order dated 
12.7.2011, passed by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad 
High Court in C.P. No.2209 of 2009, affi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.