STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus OM PRAKASH AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 793 · Decided: 21-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
. ' 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
OM PRAKASH AND ORS. 
JULY 21, 2006 
[H.K. SEMA AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Professional qualifications-Preferential clause-Interpretation of-
Homeopathic Medical Officers-Relruitment of-Eligibility-Degree in C 
Homeopathy or Diploma in Homeopathy-With proviso that preference would 
be given to degree-holders-Held, when selection is made on the basis of 
merit assessed through competitive examination and interview, preference to 
additional qualification would mean other things being qualitative(v and 
quantitatively equal, those having additional qualification would be D 
preferred-It does not mean en bloc preference irrespective of inter se merit 
and suitability-Interpretation of statutes. 
In the State of Uttar Pradesh, in order to recruit Homeopathic Medical 
Officers, an advertisement was issued whereunder qualification for the post 
was mentioned as "a recognized degree in Homeopathy" or "a recognized E 
Diploma in Homeopathy "with a proviso stipulating that preference will be 
given to degree-holders''. The Public Service Commission recommended the 
degree-holders as well as Diploma-holders. The degree-holders, whose names 
did not find place in the select list filed a number of writ petitions in the High 
Court. Main judgment was delivered on 19.7.1996 in Civil Misc. Writ petition 
No. 10175of1994. That judgment having not been assailed attained finality. F 
Thereafter following the said judgment, the High Court decided the batch of 
writ petitions holding that in view of the preferential clause, the degree-holders 
were to be preferred to Diploma-holders, in that, the Diploma-holders were to 
be considered only where degree-holders were not available in requisite 
number. 
These subsequent orders have been challenged in the present appeals 
by the State Government 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
793 
G 
H 
794 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
...-
_:,... 
A 
HELD: I. I. The interpretation of the preference clause given by the 
High Court runs into the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court in a 
catena of cases to the effect that when selection is made on the basis of merit 
assessed through the competitive examination and interview, preference to 
additional qualification would mean other things being qualitatively and 
B 
quantitatively equal, those having additional qualification would be preferred. 
It does not mean en bloc preference irrespective of inter se merit and 
suitability. That apart, this Court has consistently held that inclusion of 
candidate's name in merit list does not confer any indefensible right to be 
appointed. The High Court has, therefore, misdirected itself by issuing the 
f' 
directions despite the fact that the respondents were not selected by the 
.; 
c Commission. (789-F-G; 801-C-D[ 
Secy. (Health) Deptt. Of Health & F. W. v. Dr. Anita Puri, [ 1996[ 6 SCC 
282; Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. Y. V. V.R. Srinivasulu, (2003) 
5 SCC 341; Shankarsan Sash v. Union of India, AIR (1991) SC 1612 and 
Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh, (1993) l SCC 154, relied 
D on. 
2.1. The contention that the judgment of the High Court dated 19.7.1996 
passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10175of1994 which judgment was 
followed in a subsequent order having been assailed in the instant batch of 
E 
appeals and, therefore, the same being clearly illegal, should also be set aside, 
cannot be accepted. Firstly, the judgment dated 19.7.1996 has not been appealed 
against and it has now been implemented and has attained finality. Secondly, 
the writ petitioners in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10175 of 1994 and 
batches thereof which were allowed by the High Court in its judgment dated 
19.7.1996 are not before-this Court. However, the subsequent orders following 
F the judgment by the High Court dated 19.7.1996, which have been assailed in 
these bunch of civil appeals, are set aside. (801-G-H; 802-A-B) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5757-5759 of 
2002. 
G 
From the Judgment and order dated 11. 9 .1998 and 3 .11.1998 of the High 
Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Review Petition No. 73 (W) 
of 1998 and High Court of Allahabad, at Allahabad, in C.M. W.P. No. 4923 of 
1997 and C.M.W.P. No. 1231/1996. 
WJTH 
.... 
H 
C.A. No. 5761-5763/02, C.A. No. 5765-5766/02,C.A. No. 5760/02, C.A. 
'. 
/-
STATEOFU.P. v. OM PRAKASH [SEMA,J.] 
795 
No. 5764/02, C.A. No. 3078 of 2006 @ SL

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