STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus RAJKUMAR SHARMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 877 · Decided: 03-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

)-
. 
~ 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
RAJKUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. 
MARCH 3, 2006 
[ARIJJT PASA Y AT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
". 
Service Law: 
') 
Appointment-Selected candidates-Claiming appointment-Junior c 
Engineers selected by UPP SC for appointment in the Hill Cadre of undivided 
St'ate of Uttar Pradesh-Meanwhile State of Uttaranchal coming into 
existence-State of Uttaranchal declining to appoint the candidates-State 
of Uttar Pradesh not giving appointments as posts were meant for Hill cadre, 
which on creation of State of Uttaranchal stood abolished-Supreme Court 
in-Sidharth Srivastava's case observing that if vacancies arise within three D 
years and candidates apply, in their case upper age limit may be relaxed-
\, 
On candidates filing another writ petition, High Court held that as the select 
list was in force, the writ petitioners be given the benefits-Held, selectees 
cannot claim appointment as a matter of right-High Court wrongly presumed 
that the select list was in force-By virtue of Rules 12 and 16 the select list 
is valid only for one year-Relaxation in age was given for a period of three E 
years for applicants if applications were invited by respective State Public 
Service Commissions-U.P. Public Works Department Subordinate Engineering 
Service Rules, 1951-Rules 12 and 16-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 
14,16,320 and 323(2)-U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000-s.178. 
... 
Certain posts of Junior Engineers for the Hill Cadre of undivided F 
-
\ 
State of Uttar Pradesh weri! advertised. The UPPSC sent a seleet list to 
the State Government of U.P. Meanwhile, State of Uttaranchal Pradesh 
came into existence and all the districts earlier comprising the Hill Cadre 
came under the State of Uttaranchal. The State Government of U.P. 
forwarded the list to the State of Uttaranchal which declined to offer G 
appointments. The selected candidates filed writ petitions which were 
.--. 
allowed by the High Court directing the State Government of Uttaranchal 
to give appointments to the writ petitioners. On appeal, the Supreme Court 
observed that as and when applications were invited for selection either 
877 
H 
878 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006) 2 S.C.R. 
A by UPPSC or Uttaranchal State P.S.C, and if the writ petitioners apply within 
a period of three years, the respective Commission would "consider them for 
selection subject to their satisfying all the eligibility requirements but relaxing 
the upper age limit". Thereafter the writ petitioners approached the State 
Government of Uttar Pradesh to appoint them but their requests were turned 
down. They again filed another writ petition which was allowed. Aggrieved, 
B the State of U.P. filed the present a11peal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Filling up of vacancies over and above the number of 
C vacancies advertised would be violative of the fundamental rights granted 
under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Selectees cannot claim the 
appointment as a matter of right. Mere inclusion of candidates' names in 
the list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the 
vacancies remained unfilled and the concerned candidates cannot claim 
that they have been given a hostile discrimination. Even if in some cases 
D appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly that does not confer 
any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not 
envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot · 
be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. (884-8, D, GI 
~ 
Union of India & Ors. v. lshwar Singh Khalgri & Ors., 119921 Supp. 3 
E SCC 84; Gujarat Statge Dv. Executive Engineers' Association v. State of 
Gujarat & Ors. (1994) Supp.2 SCC 591; State of Bihar & Ors. v. The 
Secretariat Assistant S.E. Union, 1986 & Ors., AIR (1994) SC 736; Prem 
Singh & Ors. v. Haryana Stale Electricity Board & Ors., (1996( 4 SCC 319; 
Surendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR (1998) SC 18; Kamlesh 
F Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta & Ors., AIR (1998) SC 1021; 
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, AIR (1991) SC 1612; Smt. Asha Kaul & 
.... 
Anr. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Anr., (19931 2 SCC 573; Union of 
i -
India v. S.S. Uppal AIR (1996) SC 2346; Hanman Prasad v. Union of India, 
(1996110 SCC 742; Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors. v. State of Bihar 
& Ors., AIR (1997) SC 2280; Syndicate Bank & Ors. v. Shankar Paul & Ors., 
G AIR (1997) SC 3091; Vice Chancellor, University of Allahaba
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.