Supreme Court Overturns High Court Order on Deputy Collector Appointment: State of UP vs. Chunni Lal (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 23 November 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 749
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a High Court order the appointment of two individuals to a single government position? This question was at the heart of a recent dispute before the Supreme Court of India. The case arose from a long-standing disagreement over the appointment of Deputy Collectors in Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, overturned a High Court decision that had directed the state to appoint a candidate to a post already occupied by another, emphasizing that a single post cannot be held by two individuals.

Case Background

The dispute began with a selection process initiated by the U.P. Public Service Commission for 35 posts of Deputy Collector in 1985. Following the Combined State Service Examination, the Commission recommended candidates for appointment in 1987. However, two selected candidates did not join, leaving two vacancies. The Commission then recommended Shri Digvijay Singh and Chunni Lal (Respondent No. 1) for these vacant positions.

On 24 April 1989, the State Government sent a letter to the Director General, Medical and Health Services, Lucknow, for the medical examination of Digvijay Singh and Chunni Lal. However, Ajay Shankar Pandey (Respondent No. 2) filed a writ petition before the High Court, which directed the Public Service Commission to recommend his name instead.

In compliance with the High Court’s order on 24 June 1989, the Commission withdrew its recommendation for Chunni Lal. The State appealed this order to the Supreme Court, which was later disposed of. Subsequently, Chunni Lal filed a writ petition against the continuance of Ajay Shankar Pandey. The High Court directed the State/Public Service Commission to consider Chunni Lal’s representation, which was rejected by the State on 13 December 1996. Chunni Lal then amended his writ petition to challenge this rejection.

The High Court quashed the rejection order and directed the State to reconsider Chunni Lal’s appointment, while clarifying that Ajay Shankar Pandey’s appointment should not be disturbed. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Arguments

The State of U.P. argued that the High Court erred in directing the appointment of two individuals to a single post. They emphasized that Ajay Shankar Pandey had been appointed to the post of Deputy Collector following a High Court order, and there was no vacancy for Chunni Lal. The State also argued that creating a supernumerary post was not feasible.

Respondent No. 2, Ajay Shankar Pandey, supported the State’s arguments, stating that his appointment was valid and should not be disturbed. He also pointed out that the High Court’s order was impractical as it sought to fill a single post with two individuals.

Though served, Respondent No. 1, Chunni Lal, did not appear before the Supreme Court. However, his case was based on the subsequent recommendation by the Public Service Commission in his favor after the initial recommendation was withdrawn due to the High Court’s order in favor of Ajay Shankar Pandey.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the primary issue as:

1. Whether the High Court could direct the State to appoint two persons to a single post of Deputy Collector, especially when one appointee was already in service due to a previous High Court order.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific case laws or legal provisions in the provided judgment. However, the court’s reasoning was based on the fundamental principle that a single post cannot be held by two individuals simultaneously. This principle is rooted in the basic tenets of service law and administrative law, which emphasize the need for clear and defined positions within the government.

Judgment

The court did not cite any specific authorities.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the impracticality of the High Court’s order. The Court emphasized that a single post cannot be occupied by two individuals simultaneously. The existing appointment of Ajay Shankar Pandey to the post of Deputy Collector, pursuant to a prior High Court order, was a significant factor. The Court also noted that the State had specifically mentioned that there was no vacant post and no supernumerary post could be created. The retirement of the original writ petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings further made the High Court’s order incapable of implementation.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the practical impossibility of implementing the High Court’s order. The court emphasized that its decision was grounded in the factual matrix of the case, where the post was already occupied and no vacancy existed.

The Supreme Court observed that “the High Court ought not to have or could not have passed an order directing the State to appoint two persons to the single post of Deputy Collector.” The court further stated that “the observation made by the High Court that the original writ petitioner be appointed without disturbing the appointment of Ajay Shankar Pandey cannot be sustained.” The court concluded that “two persons cannot be directed to be appointed to a single post.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ A High Court cannot direct the appointment of two individuals to a single government post.
• ✓ When a post is already occupied, a subsequent order to appoint another individual to the same post is unsustainable.
• ✓ The practicality and feasibility of court orders are crucial considerations.
• ✓ The retirement of a party during the pendency of proceedings can render the court’s order incapable of implementation.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 16 July 2014, passed in Writ Petition No. 1181 (S/B) of 1996. No further directions were given.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a single government post cannot be held by two individuals simultaneously. This judgment reinforces the established principle in service law that an appointment to a post implies a vacancy and that the same post cannot be occupied by two people at the same time. There is no change in the previous position of law but rather a reiteration of the settled position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of U.P. vs. Chunni Lal & Ors. clarifies that a High Court cannot direct the appointment of two individuals to a single government post. The Court emphasized the impracticality of such an order, especially when one individual is already serving in the position. The judgment underscores the importance of clear and defined positions in government service and the need for court orders to be practically implementable. The Supreme Court ultimately quashed the High Court’s order, reinforcing the principle that a single post cannot be held by two people simultaneously.