SHEO SHYAM AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 406 · Decided: 16-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHEO SHY AM AND ORS. 
---
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 16, 2004 
r• 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
--~ 
Service Law: 
c 
Appointment for the posts of Assistant Prosecuting Officer through Union 
Public Service Commission-Recommendations made by the Commission in 
piecf!-meal-Some of the candidates having not joined the service, State 
Government requisitioned some candidates from the waiting list-Commission 
refused to send additional names on the ground that waiting list had lapsed-
I 
Challenge to-Rejected by High Court-On appeal, Held: On the one hand, 
l-
D the State Government taking the stand that validity period of the waiting list 
has to be counted from the date of last recommendation for getting additional 
names from waiting list, on the other hand it included the vacancies in afresh 
requisition leading to the Commission holding fresh Selection Test-State 
Government should not have included the unfilled posts in its requisition and 
Commission should have asked the State Government reasons as to inclusion 
E of these vacancies-Career of candidates cannot be jeopardized due to the 
inconsistency/varying stands taken by the State Government and the 
-
Commission-The State Government and the Commission to reconsider the 
case of appointment of the candidates if found eligible for the post-In the 
facts and circumstances of the case, it would be equitable and just to count 
F validity period of the waiting list from the last recommendations-Directions 
issued 
__},.
Un!on Public Service Commission made recqmmendations for 
appointment for the post of Assistant Prosecuting Officer. The Commission 
made recommendations in piece-meal and the State Government made 
G appointments. Thirty candidates did not join the service. However, the 
State Government requisitioned the commission for seven additional 
candidates only from the waiting list. Commission refused to send 
additional names as validity period of the waiting list was over. Aggrieved, 
~
the candidates filed writ petitions, which were dismissed by the High 
H 
Court. Hence the present appeals. 406 
., 
SHEO SHY AM v. ST A TE 
407 
It was contended for the appellants that the stand taken by the A 
Commission was contrary to the office memorandum issued by the State 
Government which stipulates that if the Commission failed to send the 
names of the candidates within the prescribed period, waiting list in such 
cases shall be valid even after one year if not utilized; and that the period 
of one year has to be reckoned from the date of sending names of last Bl 
candidates from the waiting list. 
On behalf of the Commission, it was submitted that though plea of 
the appellant has been accepted by the Commission, but in the facts and 
circumstances of the case that cannot act as an estoppel against the 
Commission; and that it was unavoidable on the part of the Commission ( 
to send recommendation in batches since verification of the antecedents 
of the selected candidates takes time. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In view of the peculiar nature of the fact situation in [ 
the present case, it would be inequitable and unjust to compute the period 
of one year from the date of the first recommendation made by the 
Commission. It would be proper to reckon the period from the date of 
the last recommendation. But, the State Government had requisitioned for 
additional posts including the unfilled posts of the previous selection and 
examinations were held. The fate of the appellants has suffered a set back E
on account of the action of both the Commission and the State 
Government. [411-D-E] 
1.2. If the Commission's stand is that the validity period of the 
waiting list is one year, it should have sought for clarification from State 
Government, as to why unfilled posts were included in the requisition, I 
when its specific stand in the office memoranda was to the contrary. At 
the same time, the State Government having taken a positive stand all 
through that the date of reckoning would be the last date on which the 
recommendation was made, it should not have includ2d the unfilled posts 
in its requisition. The career of the appellants cannot be jeoparidized in ( 
this battle· of inconsistent and varying stands taken and m.Jves adopted 
by the State Government and the Commission at different stages for 
different purposes. Commission accepted that the period was to be from 
the last date of recommendation. Though t

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