Supreme Court directs Allahabad High Court to expedite Police Constable selection cases: Ashish Kumar Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) INSC 276

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 3, 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 276

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., Navin Sinha, J.

Can a group of candidates be denied similar treatment when they are similarly situated to another group of candidates, especially when a court has already crystallized their rights? The Supreme Court of India recently dealt with this question in a case concerning the selection of Police Constables in Uttar Pradesh. The core issue revolved around whether candidates who allegedly used whitener/blade/eraser during their selection process should receive the same benefits as Sub-Inspectors who were in a similar situation, as per a previous judgment of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court bench comprised of Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Justice Navin Sinha. The judgment was authored by Justice Kurian Joseph.

Case Background

The case concerns candidates who applied for the position of Police Constable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. During the selection process, it was alleged that these candidates had used whitener, blade, or eraser on their answer sheets. These candidates, along with similarly situated Sub-Inspector candidates, were previously the subject of a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Hanuman Dutt Shukla & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. dated 19.01.2016.

The appellants in this case contended that the benefit of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Hanuman Dutt Shukla (supra) was not extended to them in its true spirit. They argued that since the Supreme Court had implemented the judgment for Sub-Inspectors, the Police Constables were also entitled to similar treatment.

The High Court of Allahabad had permitted the appellants to make representations regarding their grievances. However, these representations were subsequently rejected.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants had initially approached the High Court of Allahabad, which allowed them to make representations. After their representations were rejected, some of the candidates challenged the rejection orders before the High Court of Allahabad. The Supreme Court noted that these writ petitions were pending before the High Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case revolves around the interpretation and application of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Hanuman Dutt Shukla & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. The appellants argued that the principles established in that judgment, which benefited Sub-Inspectors, should also apply to them as Police Constables. However, the judgment does not explicitly discuss any specific legal provisions or statutes.

Arguments

The appellants, represented by Sh. Salman Khurshid and Mrs. Mahalaxmi Pavani, contended that the Supreme Court had already crystallized their rights in the decision of Hanuman Dutt Shukla (supra). They argued that since the Court had implemented the judgment in letter and spirit for Sub-Inspectors, the Police Constables were also entitled to similar treatment.

The State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by Mr. V. Shekhar, assisted by Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, argued that the matter was already before the High Court of Allahabad, where the appellants had challenged the rejection of their representations.

The innovativeness of the argument of the appellants was that they were seeking parity with the Sub-Inspectors based on the same judgment of the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues. However, the core issue before the court was whether the Police Constables, who allegedly used whitener/blade/eraser, were entitled to the same benefits as Sub-Inspectors, as per the judgment in Hanuman Dutt Shukla (supra), and whether the Supreme Court should intervene given that the High Court was already seized of the matter.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The primary authority considered by the Supreme Court was its own judgment in Hanuman Dutt Shukla & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. dated 19.01.2016. The appellants argued that this judgment had crystallized their rights and that they were entitled to the same benefits as the Sub-Inspectors who were similarly situated.

Judgment

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals with the following directions:

✓ The High Court was requested to dispose of the writ petitions concerning the selection of Police Constables who allegedly used whitener/blade/eraser, expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of the judgment.

✓ Candidates who had not yet pursued remedies before the High Court were allowed to do so, and their cases would be considered along with the existing batch of cases.

The Supreme Court stated, “We do not think that we should go into that question at this stage since the very same contention is raised by the appellants before the High Court and the High Court is seized of the matter.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The primary factor that weighed in the mind of the Supreme Court was that the High Court of Allahabad was already seized of the matter. The Court did not want to create parallel proceedings or interfere with the High Court’s jurisdiction. The Court’s focus was on ensuring a speedy resolution of the matter by directing the High Court to expedite the pending cases.

Key Takeaways

✓ The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of avoiding parallel proceedings when a matter is already before a High Court.

✓ The Supreme Court directed the High Court to expedite the cases related to the selection of Police Constables, preferably within three months.

✓ The judgment allows candidates who have not yet approached the High Court to pursue their remedies, ensuring that all similarly situated candidates are considered together.

✓ The decision highlights the need for High Courts to consider similar cases together and ensure that the benefits of judgments are extended to all similarly situated individuals.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to dispose of the writ petitions in the matter of selection to the post of Police Constables from the candidates who are alleged to have used whitener/blade/eraser etc. expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of production of this Judgment.

The Court also directed that in the case of those similar candidates who have not yet pursued the remedy before the High Court, they are also free to do so, in which case, their cases will also be considered by the High Court along with the batch of cases which we have referred to above.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a matter is already pending before a High Court, the Supreme Court will generally not interfere with the matter on merits. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for High Courts to expedite such matters, especially when they involve a large number of similarly situated individuals. The judgment reinforces the principle that similarly situated individuals should be treated equally and that High Courts should expedite cases before them. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by directing the High Court of Allahabad to expedite the writ petitions concerning the selection of Police Constables who allegedly used whitener/blade/eraser. The Court emphasized the need for a speedy resolution and equal treatment of similarly situated candidates, while also respecting the jurisdiction of the High Court.