TOSH KUMAR SHARMA versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD & ORS. R1: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD R2: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH R3: SELECTION & APPOINTMENT COMMITTEE OF U.P.H.J.S. EXAMINATION

Citation: [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1998 · Decided: 16-07-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1998 : 2025 INSC 921
Tosh Kumar Sharma 
v. 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors. 
R1: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 
R2: State of Uttar Pradesh 
R3: Selection & Appointment Committee of 
U.P.H.J.S. Examination
(Civil Appeal No. 9510 of 2025)
16 July 2025
[Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by 
the High Court rejecting the claim raised for appointment by the 
appellant to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in 
the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service.
Headnotes†
Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 – rr.8(2), 
18(4) – Number of appointments to be made – Appointment 
to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the 
State Higher Judicial Service – Appellant participated in 
the selection process for ‘Direct Recruitment to the Uttar 
Pradesh Higher Judicial Service-2016’ – Thirty-seven posts 
under the General Category to be filled – Appellant placed 
at thirty-eight position in the Merit List – One candidate out 
of the thirty-seven candidates recommended by the High 
Court did not receive approval from the Hon’ble Governor/
State Government, leaving the actual recruitment under the 
General Category to thirty-six, with one vacancy remaining – 
Claim of the appellant that since he was the next candidate 
in line, he should automatically have been recommended for 
appointment – However, the said vacant post was carried 
forward for the next recruitment cycle – High Court rejected 
the claim of appellant – Correctness:
Held: If there is refusal to intervene, an unjust outcome would 
be perpetuated – Denial of recommendation and consequential 
appointment of the appellant not justified – r.8(2) of the Rules does 
not apply to the situation confronting the High Court upon the rejection 
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 
1999
Tosh Kumar Sharma v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors.
of one candidature by the Hon’ble Governor/State Government from 
out of the communicated list – First portion of r.8(2) contemplates 
that the said Rule is attracted only when the number of ‘selected 
direct recruits available for appointment’ is less than the number of 
direct recruit vacancies, i.e., vacant posts available/advertised – In 
the absence of this condition being satisfied, the High Court not 
under obligation to act in terms of r.8(2) – Terminology employed in 
r.8(2) is ‘selected direct recruits available for appointment’ – Provision 
fundamentally negates any option of approving the High Court’s 
invocation of r.8(2), as the said Rule itself is cognizant of availability 
for appointment – Term ‘direct recruits’ occurring in r.18(4) also 
need to be construed bearing the other Rules in mind, including the 
phraseology engrafted in r.8(2) – r.8(2) could have been pressed 
into service when, exempli gratia, vacancies advertised were ten, 
but only nine candidates figured in the Merit List, leaving one clear 
vacancy, which would be filled-up from the Nyayik Sewa by way of 
promotion, and also adjusted in the next recruitment cycle for direct 
recruits correspondingly, as per the proviso to r.8(2) – Impugned 
judgment set aside – High Court and the State Government to 
process and issue appointment letter to the appellant – Seniority to 
be reckoned notionally as part of 2016 Advertisement – Constitution 
of India – Art.233, 234, 235, 236. [Paras 21, 22, 25]
Case Law Cited
A. Raja v. D. Kumar, 2025 INSC 629 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 
1033 – relied on.
Vallampati Sathish Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2022] 2 SCR 
1080 : (2022) 13 SCC 193; Bihar State Electricity Board v. Suresh 
Prasad (2004) 2 SCC 681; Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh v. 
L.V.A. Dixitulu [1979] 1 SCR 26 : (1979) 2 SCC 34; High Court of 
Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh [2003] 1 SCR 593 : (2003) 
4 SCC 239; Ashok Pal Singh v. Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services 
Association [2010] 12 SCR 25 : (2010) 12 SCC 635; Rajendra 
Singh Verma v. Lieutenant Governor [2011] 12 SCR 496 : (2011) 
10 SCC 1; Dr. P.S. Malik v. High Court of Delhi (2020) 19 SCC 
714; High Court of Kerala v. Reshma A. [2021] 1 SCR 289 : (2021) 
3 SCC 755 – referred to.
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975; Constitution 
of India.
2000
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Post of Additional District and Sessions Judge; ‘2016 Advertisement’; 
General category; One vacancy remaining; ‘Selected direct recr

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