LexSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus NIDHI KHANNA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'Y
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
A
11.
NIDHI KHANNA AND ANR.
MAY 11, 2007
[C.K. THAKKERAND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]
B
\
Service Law-Appointment-Selection of Candidate pursuant to an
---(
advertisement-Placed in wait list-Appointment sought-Denied on the
ground that in view of Merit List prepared pursuant to subsequent c
advertisement, Merit List prepared under previous advertisement had lapsed
Writ Petition--High Court issuing Writ of Mandamus directing appointment
of the candidate-On appeal, held: The Writ was issued directing the
authorities to act contrary to law-Under the statutory provisions as soon
as the new list is prepared old list comes to an end-.Uttar Pradesh Higher
D
Services Commission Act, 1980-ss. 12 and 13.
•
Respondent No. 1 applied for the post of lecturer pursuant to
Advertisement No. 29 from Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services
)"
Commissfon. She was selected and her name was placed at serial no. 1 in the
wait list. Having not received any letter, she met the Director to enquire about E
her appointment and she was told that letter appointing her in a college of
Meerut was sent to her. Since she did not join there, her placement was
cancelled. She denied having received any such letter. She prayed for her
appointment in a college at Allahabad. The college had no objection to appoint
her. The prayer was rejected on the ground that the list prepared under
Advertisement No.29 had lapsed as new list under Advertisement No. 32 was F
prepared. Respondent filed Writ Petition. High Court allowed the Writ
-y
Petition, directing the authorities to appoint respondent No.1 in the college
.,.,,
at Allahabad. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: High Court was not justified in issuing a Writ of Mandamus
directing the appellants to appoint respondent No.1 as Lecturer in the College
at Allahabad. Once it is established that the first respondent was selected
. ..,.,.
and empanelled in the Wait List pursuant to Advertisement No. 29 and that
Advertisement No. 32 was thereafter issued and Merit List was prepared H
429
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 6 S.C.R.
A accordingly, the statutory provisions will come into play. Under the provisions
of Uttar Pradesh Higher Services Commission Act, 1980, as soon as the new
list is prepared, the old list comes to an end. The High Court could not have
issued a writ of Mandamus directing the Authorities to act contrary to law.
That is not the ambit and scope of writ of Mandamus.
B
(Paras 7 and 17] (432-E-F; 438-B-DI
State of Bihar and Anr. v. Madan Mohan Singh and Ors., (1994] Supp
3 SCC 308 and Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and Ors.,
(199813 sec 45, relied on
~
' ..
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2442 of2007.
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2004 of the High Court
of Judicature of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45418 of2003.
Shobha Dikshit, Sr. Adv., and Niranjana Singh for the Appellants.
D
Pramod Swarup for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
»
C.K. THAKKER, J. I. Leave granted.
1
E
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on March 15,
2004 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 45418 of 2003. By the said
judgment, the High Court directed the appellants to give an appointment letter
to respondent No. I (writ petitioner) for the post of Lecturer in Geography
F in C.M.P. Degree College, Allahabad 'forthwith'.
3. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in June, 2000,
T
Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission ('Commission' for short)
.....
advertised under Advertisement No. 29, vacancies of Lecturers in different
non-Government Degree (P.G.) Colleges. In pursuance of the said
G advertisement, respondent No. I (writ petitioner) applied for the post of
Lecturer in Geography in August, 2000. A Select List was prepared on July
19, 200 I. Respondent No. I was declared selected, but her name was placed
at Serial No. I in the Wait-List of General Category candidates. It is the case
of the appellants that the Director of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad,
...
H appellant No. 2, herein issued an order on November 23, 2002 by which
STATE OF U.P. v. NIDHI KHANNA [C.K. THAKKER. J.]
431
~
respondent No. I was appointed as Lecturer in Geography in R.G. Girls A
College, Meerut. AcExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.