STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER versus RAM GOPAL SHUKLA

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 460 · Decided: 10-04-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.D. KOSHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
460 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER 
v. 
RAM GOPAL SHUKLA 
April JO, 1981 
(A.D. KOSHAL AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.J 
Uttar Pradesh Promotion by Selection in Consultation with Public Service 
Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1970, Rules 7A and 7B-Whether the rules are 
discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 
New plea-New plea cannot be allowed at the time of hearing of the appeal 
in the Supreme Court. 
The selection for the posts of Tehsildars in the State of U.P. was to be made 
by promotion from amongst various sources such as Naib Tehsildars, Peshkars of 
the Kumaon Division, Kanungos, Kanungo Inspectors or Instructors and Sadar 
Kanungos as per the procedure laid down in rules known as Uttar Pradesh 
Adheenasth Rajaswa Karyakari (Tehsildar) Sewa Niyamavali, 1966. The procedure 
for selection is regulated by Rule 9 and under sub-section (6) of this Rule a 
E 
select list will be drawn in order of merit separately for substantive vacancies and 
temporary vacancies and officials will be offered officiating or temporary vacancies 
in the order in which their names have been arranged in the "select list" as and 
when the vacancies occur during the course of the year. 
This "select list" will 
hold good only for one year or until such time a review is made at the 
following selections. 
F 
Subsequently, the State Government made the Uttar Pradesh Promotion by 
Selection in Consultation with Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1970, 
which governed various services, to be more specific 29 Uttar Pradesh services 
including the services of Tehsi!dars. The purpose of these rules was to standardise 
the procedure for promotion and make it uniform in respect of such services. The 
procedure laid down in the 1970 Rules for promotion as Tehsildars was not sub-
stantially different from that laid down in the Tehsildars Rules, 1966. By a 
G 
Notification No. 42/4/196:-Appointment, 3 dated 4th July, 1972 two new rules 
were introduced, namely, Rules 7A and 7B, in the 1970 Rules. -As per these newly 
added rules candidates in the Select List made under the 1966 Rules were to be 
appointed against substantive vacancies in preference to any candidates selected 
in accordance with the provisions of the 1970 Rules and nnless the candidates in 
the list were exhausted, other eligible candidates were not to be considered for 
H 
promotion so that thei.r chances of promotion would be deferred to an undated 
future. 
j
• 
U.P. STATE V. RAMGOPAL 
461 
The respondent who started his service as Kanungo in 1949, was promoted 
as Naib Tehsildar and in 1962 he was confirmed as such. In 1963, he was appoint-
ed as Tehsildar in an officiating capacity. In accordance with the 1966 Rules the 
Uttar Pradesh, Public Service Commission selected 148 persons for sub-
stantive appointment as Tehsildars and their names were shown in a list known 
as Li st-A. The Commission also selected 300 other persons for temporary or 
officiating appointment as Tehsildars during the coming years and their names 
figured in what was called List-B. The respondent was, however, not selected 
and his name could not be included in either of the aforesaid two lists because he 
had an adverse entry forming part of the remarks recorded on his work and 
conduct and had also been shown down below at serial 557 in the seniority list of 
Naib Tehsildars in the year 1966. Though the adverse entry was expunged in 
the year 1969 and his seniority was also re-fixed at serial number 216 on 6th 
October, 1970, since there was no selection after 1966, his name could not be 
included in either of the two lists even thereafter. 
The respondent challenged the vires of Rules 7A and 7B by filing a petition 
uuder Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Allahabad. That 
petition was allowed in part and Rules 7 A and 7B were declared ultra vi res 
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, in the impugned judgment. Hence the 
-
appeal by special leave by the State. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: 1:1. Rules 7A and 7B of the Uttar Pradesh Promotion by Selection 
in O;msultation with Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1970 .. are 
ultra rires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (466 E, 473 A-BJ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
1 :2. 
The grievance of the respondent, namely, that he had a fundamental 
E 
right of being considered for promotion when others similarly situated were so 
condsidered and teat if he was not considered in a situation l

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