U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, ALLAHABAD AND ANR. versus ALPANA

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 131 · Decided: 17-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ \. 
U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, U'ITAR PRADESH, 
ALLAHABAD AND ANR. 
v. 
ALPANA 
JANUARY 17, 1994 
[A.M. AHMADf AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
Service Law : 
A 
B 
U.P. Nyayik Sewa--Munsif-Recn.1itment of-Public Service Commis-
C 
sion-Advertisement-Requirement of possessing Law degree on the last date 
fixed for receipt of applicatiom-Application by a candidate not possessing 
law degree on the fixed date but awaiting results-Passing law subsequent to 
the fixed date-Candidate allowed to appear in written examination but not 
called for interview-Directions by High Court to Public Service Commission 
to interview, declare results and if successful recommend for appoint- D 
ment--Legality of-Righ Court's order held not justified. 
The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission issued an advertise· 
ment inviting applications for the post of Munsifs. The candidates were 
required to possess the Law Degree on the last date fixed for receipt of E 
applications which was 20th August, 1988. The respondent, who had ap· 
peared in the Law Degree examination, the result whereof had not been 
declared till August 20, 1988, applied pursuant to the said advertisement 
mentioning in the application that she was awaiting her law degree ex· 
amination result. She passed the Law Degree examination in October, 1988 
and the Public Service Commission allowed her to appear at the written test F 
which she successfully cleared. As she was not called for interview, she filed 
a writ petition in the High Court and, pursuant to an interim order passed .. 
by the High Court, she was interviewed but her result was kept in abeyance. 
By its final order, the High Court, rel}ing upon the judgment of this Court 
in As/wk Kumar Shanna & Anr. v. Chander Shekher & Anr., (1993) 1 S.L.R. G 
379, and two of its earlier Judgments directed the Public Service Commis-
sion to declare her result and, if successful, to forward her name to the 
Government for appointment, if necessary, by creating a supernumerary 
post. Against the order of the High Court, appeal was filed in this Court. 
,, 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, H 
• .•f •·:c•. l ' 
' 
' 
· 
· 
• 
' 
. 
131 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 1 S.C.R. 
HELD : 1. The Public Service Commission was right in refusing to 
call the respondent for interview. {137-B]h 
2. The approach of the· High Court<intmandating the Public Service 
B 8 Commission to interview the respondent, declare her result and if success-
ful to forwar<P her nahie for' app6intnien'f to. tli~ ·Gov~rftmehf cannot be 
supported on any rule or prevalent practice nor can it be supported on 
equitable considerations. There was no occasion for the 'High)Cotirt to 
interfere mth the refusal of the Public Service Commission to interview 
;,:_. 
\-"\. -..\·n.).t 
.• 1t,1 ,ct 
~·\ 
-:,· .,.1 __ ""'•'+--- "1 1.-J ··-
__ ( ___ • 
-· • 
•• , ,(/I 
t.i_ .\ 
• 
C • h~~·m· ~ll~ a~s~nc~ ~! ~ny spe~lfk r~le ~il ~hat'b_7hal!; N_o rul~ or practice 
is sllf>Wii:to have' eXiste'd whkli' pe'riniited 'entertainmenfof her'apptietatfon:•l 
It;is1difiicult 'to' gi;;~r~c'ogriition to'!such ,,ait ~ apprc>acti·oHhe ittgli Court'1tsi', 
that woulCI-1Spen"'up!ii'flo(}d-of litigatioii/tt372A_.nf1 'u ,,,._ .. 1.~ "~ j I'f.i •• H:i; 
I; q;, HP~ J ,f\1~'r~f':.1(\~~J. ~ r·· ... < · h ,,· 1...:. 1-~.r.\.. 
'>1~ \)-., ;:n,\\• 'l""."· • ·~\~tu1J- "'.l\1\, \'n ,,J .. '. ·1At 
1 .. ;1:<Ashok· Kumar•Shaima & 'Anr,\v.-Chander Shekher &Anr.;"(1993)'.11.1 
r) 1 S.LR1t379;distingaished; · "' · 1 • 
... 
1: 
·- ' ,_i\,:' ·' -,,,., '·"" 
,;• •. r. :1-1 nl 
\J.,1.'~~I :· 
Jr'! 
.. ,~J.' 
'·'t.1 ... l\ 
!
1
\"\.\~:...1") 
t\\~.~· •. -\\l ", .... $\f\'\.J._\--,~~\·~1\, 
[However, this 
C~urt observed that if. the r~spondent bas been 
appointeddn. obedience•to the High.C(jUrt's 'order.-her·appointmerit ·shall 
not be.,ca"ncelled;• but 'if:$he !h/1i'ot 'appoirited' she Will iiQt be erttitled to · 
1 appointment.]. '.J'.!. :, ;.i!c.ll ;,.;1 · •i; '·"' .·r _,,_ .
. :c.._ . .,,1, , _,._ 
~··.J "l 1}.., ,;,i:.·;1 
E'-" 
'-''l~:ii. ~-...::.d it!i ·~ 
,.1- 1 ~:1.i.Hi;J'li··-., 
:,. ...• -~t 'et. .j .. !~~~"'i'~ 
.Lit-_ 
2.:; 
J~.i.t.:l'·i· 
·~ .ut~~")~~""-f\:j 
p· 
: .... r,GlYlbf.i.PfEp:,,ATp .J:UR_I~P1CIIQJ\T. ~ q~l. •f..pp~al,~q.; 1§~._of: 
1~~1~ ", 
-~·;'"1( )JJ b1 . ':»~;: r: ·rn_:u·1.~.J::. ;)o1.~fh11 ~"..l .-.~~\'J. ,t).~~ 1..-·u:~:~.1.\ ;t
1 ! u ... ,""J:!~~j 
~_..._·:J :.. ··.i~-r ... o t_.,: -j,, < ., .. 1J!· ·:i: 
J' ·t 
·.Ii~ 
i.;~t"1~ 
;---
=

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