VEERENDRA KR. GAUTAM AND OTHERS versus KARUNA NIDHAN UPADHYAY AND OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 7 S.C.R. 223 · Decided: 15-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 7 S.C.R. 223 
VEERENDRA KR. GAUTAM AND OTHERS 
v. 
KARUNA NIDHAN UPADHYAY AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 3361 of2015) 
JULYIS,2016 
[FA~(l(IR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA 
AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Co111111ission 
(Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 1983: Regn.6 -
Selection to the post of Principal in the Degree Colleges and in 
different Post Graduate Colleges ill the State of U.P. -
Non-compliance of Regn. 6 by the Commission - Held: A reading 
of Regn. 6 shows that the Commission has been invested with 
substantive power to call for interview such number of candidates 
as it may consider proper and ratio between 3 to 8 times vacancies 
can be determined by Commission which it finds appropriate - In 
the case on hand, initially, the Commission decided to limit the number 
of candidates by fixing the norms - Commission by .fixing the cut-
off mark proceeded to process the applications - But subsequently 
it altered the index norms and ultimately it decided to call all the 
candidates - It was alleged that such variatioll was adopted llumber 
of times by the Commission with a view to favour certain candidates 
who otherwise did not come within the zone of consideration for 
participation ill the interview - Such allegation is very serious one 
and, therefore, cannot be simply brushed aside by accepting the 
stand of the Commission that ultimately the ratio was within the 
range - Commission cannot follow certain practices, which give 
scope for serious criticism especially where it relates to the matter 
of selection for very responsible post of Prillcipal to various aided 
and affiliated colleges of the State University - High Court rightly 
set aside the whole selection - Uttar Pradesh Higher Education 
Services Commission Act, 1980 -
s.4(2)(e). 
Doctrines/Principles: Doctrine of estoppel - When the cause 
of action is different, the withdrmval of earlier writ petition without 
liberty to file a fresh applicatioll, will not have ally impact in making 
the fresh challenge - In the illstant case, the ll'ithdrawal of the earlier 
223 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
224 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 
writ petition without any reservation did not cause any prejudice in 
as much as at the time when the earlier writ petition was filed, the 
select list was not announced and, therefore, when at the stage prior 
to the interview, those writ petitions were filed, there was nothing 
wrong in the writ petitioners moving the High Court, subsequent to 
the declaration of the results by raising a challenge to the select 
list. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The first submission was that prior to the holding 
of the interview, two writ petitions were filed earlier which were 
simply withdrawn and since the very same selection was the 
subject matter of challenge in those writ petitions and the writ 
petitions were withdrawn without any reservation and without 
asking for any liberty to raise a challenge at a later point of time, 
the writ petitioners were estopped from filing the present writ 
petition. The High Court rightly held that the earlier writ petition 
was filed before the interview commenced and that when 
subsequently, after the interview, select list for the post of 
Principals of post graduate Colleges was declared, the petitioners 
chose to withdraw those writ petitions and thereafter file the 
instant writ petition. That apart, in the case on hand, there were 
as many as 17 writ petitions, which were pending before the High 
Court along with present writ petition. Therefore, withdrawal of 
the earlier two petitions by the writ petitioner could not have in 
any manner prevented the High Court from examining the 
correctness of the challenge made in the other writ petitions. 
Further, in Bharat Singh 's case, when this Court observed that 
in the writ petitions filed by the aggrieved candidates before the 
High Court all aspects of the matter shall be open for examination, 
in which everyone connected with the selection process will have 
an opportunity to place his/her point of view, there is no serious 
impediment in the case of the writ petitioner in this case to voice 
his grievance along with other writ petitioners which was virtually 
permitted by this Court earlier. Earlier when writ petitioners filed 
the writ petition, the same was at a stage when the interview was 
about to be held. By the time when the writ peti

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