STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS. versus SIDHARTH SRIVASTAVA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 278 · Decided: 05-06-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS. 
v. 
SIDHARTH SRIVASTAVA AND ORS. 
JUNE 5, 2003 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND AR!JIT PASAYAT, JJ.) 
Service Law: 
UP. Reorganisation Act, 2000-Sections 2(e), 78(4) and 86---State Public 
C Service Commission-Selection for certain posts by Uttar Pradesh Public 
Service Commission (UPPSC)-Recommendations forwarded to UP. 
Government-Subsequently, reorganization of State and constitution of State 
of Uttaranchal-Thereafter, UP. Government forwarding recommendations 
of UPPSC in respect of selection of post to Government of Uttaranchal-
D Government of Uttaranchal refusing to appoint candidates selected by UPP SC 
in view of new reservation policy being different from that of Uttar Pradesh 
and practical and legal difficulties in giving effect to appointments 
recommended by UPPSC-Challenge to the order-High Court holding that 
recommendations made by UPPSC of erstwhile State of UP. binding on new 
State of Uttaranchal-On appeal, held: In view of constitutonal provisions 
E and Section 78(4) the recommendations of UPPSC are not binding to compel 
the State of Uttaranchal to give appointments to the candidates recommended 
by the UPPSC-Also since UPPSC is not joint commission for two States, 
selection of candidates made by it cannot be accepted as selections made for 
State of Uttaranchal under Section 78(4)-Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/es 
p 2, 315(2), 320 and 323. 
Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) through 
advertisement invited applications for posts of J.E. Civilffechnical and 
published the selection result. UPPSC then sent its recommendations to 
the U.P. Government who thereafter forwarded it to Chief Engineer's 
G office, Hill Cadre. Thereafter, separate State of Uttaranchal came into 
existence. U.P. Government then forwarded the UPPSC recommendations 
in respect of posts in Hill Cadre to the Government of Uttaranchal. 
Government of Uttaranchal issued an order not to appoint the selected 
candidates since the new reservation policy of the State of Uttaranchal 
was different from that of U.P. and in such a situation there were practical 
H 
278 
STATEv. SIDHARTHSRIVASTAVA 
279 
and legal difficulties in giving appointments to the candidates A 
recommended by the UPPSC. Candidates who were selected filed writ 
petitions. Division Bench of the High Court held that the recommendations 
made by the UPPSC of the erstwhile State of U.P. were binding on new 
State of Uttaranchal. It allowed tbe writ petitions and directed the State 
of Uttaranchal to give appointments to the writ petitioners. Hence the B 
present appeals. 
Appellants contended that under section 78(4) of the U.P. 
Reorganisation Act, 2000 Governor of Uttar Pradesh would cause the 
report of UPPSC alongwith memorandum explaining the reasons for non-
acceptance of the advice of the Commission to be laid before the C 
Legislature of State of U.P and it would not be necessary for Governor of 
Uttaranchal to lay it before the Legislative Assembly of State of 
Uttaranchal because UPPSC was not a joint Commission since State of 
Uttaranchal was not even in existence and no functions could be rendered 
by the pre-existing UPPSC in respect of the new State of Uttaranchal; that 
since the report need not be laid before the Legislative Assembly of the D 
State of Uttaranchal, the report of the UPPSC is not binding upon the State 
of Uttaranchal and it would have to constitute its own Public Service 
Commission for the purpose of discharging constitutiGnal duties vide 
Article 315; that the order passed by the Government that after the 
constitution of the State of Uttaranchal, that the reservation policy having E 
been changed, the candidates recommended by the UPPSC should not be 
appointed in various departments of the Government of Uttaranchal, is a 
valid decision and consistent with the autonomy and the freedom of the 
executive action enjoyed by a newly-born State; that assuming that the 
U.P. Service (Reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes and Sche~uled 
Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 continued to be in force F 
within the territories of Uttaranchal, it does not oblige the State of 
Uttaranchal to follow a similar policy of reservation; that the High Court 
erred in construing the relevant constitutional provisions and Section 78(4) 
of the Act in judging the validity of the order of State of Uttaranchal; that 
even though a person is placed in the merit list of selected candidates, he G 
do

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