Supreme Court Directs Appointment Of Candidate Appeared In UP Higher Judicial Services 2016
The Supreme Court directed the appointment of the candidate who appeared in UP Higher Judicial Service in 2016 in light of Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975.
An Appeal was filed against the decision of Allahabad High Court wherein the claim raised by the Appellant for appointment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service was negated.
The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti observed, “In light of the above, we are unable to justify the denial of recommendation and consequential appointment of the appellant. For the sake of clarity, this is not a case where the appellant is ineligible or otherwise disqualified for appointment. This is also not a case where a ‘continuing wait list’ is being created. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed. The Impugned Judgment is set aside.“
Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha represented the Appellant, while Advocate Preetika Dwivedi represented the Respondents.
Case Brief
The Appellant contended that he participated in ‘Direct Recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service-2016’ and secured rank 38 in the merit list. However, since the total vacancies were only thirty-seven under the General Category, the High Court forwarded a list of the top thirty seven persons, who were placed above the appellant.
However, only thirty-six persons out of the thirty-seven recommended candidates were approved and consequently appointed. The Appellant contended that since he was the next candidate in line belonging to the General Category, he should have been recommended to the State Government for appointment.
The same was not done instead, the said vacant post was carried forward for the next recruitment cycle and left unfilled in the subject selection.
It was the contention of the Appellant that there cannot be any question of carry-forward of any vacancy as it was a case where one recommended candidate was not finally approved by the State Government.
Court’s Observation
The Court referred to Articles 233, 234, 235 and 236 of the Constitution of India and highlighted that Article 235 of the Constitution bestows complete, exclusive and effective control over Judicial Officers, encompassing appointment, removal, reduction of rank, dismissal, transfer, promotion etc. on the concerned High Court.
Reference was also made to Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 which 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 is not under obligation to act in terms of Rule 8(2) of the Rules”, the Court said.
The Court clarified, for instance, a Merit List contains eleven candidates, but the recruitment process culminates in recommending ten candidates for notification. If the top ten candidates are approved by the State Government, the person placed at the eleventh position is out of the game. However, if, for any reason, one or more of the top ten candidates do not get approved for appointment, the eleventh-ranked candidate from the same selection process is entitled to be offered an appointment.
“In light of the above, we are unable to justify the denial of recommendation and consequential appointment of the appellant. For the sake of clarity, this is not a case where the appellant is ineligible or otherwise disqualified for appointment. This is also not a case where a ‘continuing wait list’ is being created. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed. The Impugned Judgment is set aside”, the Court observed.
The Court directed the Allahabad High Court and the State Government to process and issue an Appointment Letter to the Appellant.
Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed.
Cause Title: Tosh Kumar Sharma V. High Court of Allahabad & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 921)