STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus HARISH CHANDRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 260 · Decided: 12-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
HARISH CHANDRA AND ORS. 
APRIL 12, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Seroice Law : 
U.P. Subordinate Officers Cleiical Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 
1985 : Rule 26. 
Recruitment to posts in class III and IV-Select list-Expired after 
prescribed period of one yea1~Issuance of Mandamus by High Court to 
recrnit candidates as per select list-Held : High Court erred in its conclusion 
that list did not expire-Issuance of such mandamus by High Court bad in 
D · law-Hence, High Court could not direct recruitment to such posts after expiry 
of select list. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 226-Mandamus-lssuance of-Held: No mandamus could be 
E issued either to refrain from enforcing law or to do something contrary to law. 
F 
G 
A1ticle J3(r-Special Leave Petition-Maintainability of-Against jud~ 
mellt of Single Judge of High _Court-Filed without availing alternative remedy 
of appeal to Division Bench-Held : in view of pendency of matter for more 
dian 2 years and patent error committed by High Court, SLP elltertained. 
Article 13<r-Special Leave Petition-Filing of-480 days' delay-Con-
donation of-Held: in view of delay in bureaucratic process, delay by affected 
pe1:\·ons the111selves in apJJroaclzing High Court and in view of nzerits of case, 
sufficient cause for condoning delay was shown-Hence, delay condoned. 
Practice and Procedure-Delay and Lache~ondonation of 
The respondents approached the High Court alleging, inter alia, that 
though there existed vacancies during the year 1987 and the select list was 
prepared on 4.4.87 but the Appointing Authority arbitrarily, did not fill up 
H the vacancies. The appellant contended that the select list bad expired on 
260 
STATE v. HARlSH CHANDRA 
261 
4.4.88 but a Single Jndge of the High Court negatived that contention and A 
issued a mandamus to the appellant-State to appoint the respondents. 
Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment the appellant preferred the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal this Court, 
HELD : 1. Jn view of the Statutory Rules contained in Rule 26 of the 
U.P. Subordinate Officers Clerical Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rnles, 1985, 
B 
a select list prepared under the Recruitment Rnles has its life only for one 
year from the date of the preparation of the list and it expires thereafter. 
Hence, the High Court's decision that the list does not expire after a period C 
of one year on the face of it is erroneous. Under the Constitution .a 
mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that 
he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against 
whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date 
of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamns may be one D 
im.posed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the 
force of law. Bnt no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to 
refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is 
contrary to law. This being the position and in view of the statntory Rules 
contained in Rnle 26 of the Recruitment Rules, the High Court could not 
issue the impugned direction to recruit the respondents who were included E 
in the select list prepared on 4.4.87 and the list no longer survived after 
one year and the rights, if any, of persons included in the list did not 
subsist. Even if on some occasion appointments have been made by the · 
Appointing Authority from a select list even after the expiry of one year 
from the date of selection such illegal action of the Appointing Authority F 
does not confer a right on an applicant to be enforced by a court under 
Article 226 of the Constitution. [265-G-H; 266-D-H; 267-A] 
2.1. It is undoubtedly true that the applicant seeking for condonation 
of delay is duty bound to explain the reasons for the delay but as has been G 
held by this Court in several cases, the very manner in which the 
bureaucratic process moves, if the case deserves merit the court should 
consider the question of condonation from that perspective. That apart the 
respondents themselves approached the High Court in the year 1990 
making a grievance tl • .it they had not been appointed even though they are 
included in the Select List of 1987 and 1987 list iiself expired under the H 
262 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP.1 S.C.R. 
A 
Rules on 4.4.1988. In this view of the matter and in view of the merits of 
the case it has to be hel

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