Date of the Judgment: 12 December 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 1412
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., and M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can a candidate who participated in a selection process, based on specific rules, later claim appointment based on a different set of rules? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning appointments for the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari in Uttar Pradesh. The court clarified which rules govern the selection process and whether candidates can claim a right to appointment based on a “waiting list” concept. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh, with the majority opinion authored by Justice M.M. Sundresh.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the appointment of Gram Panchayat Adhikaris in Uttar Pradesh. In 2015, the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (the Commission) advertised 3587 Group ‘C’ posts for Gram Panchayat Adhikari. The selection process was conducted as per the Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment to Group ‘C’ Posts (Mode and Procedure) Rules, 2015 (2015 Rules), which included a written examination and an interview. The final results were declared on December 24, 2016, and appointment letters were issued in April and May 2017.

Some candidates who participated in the selection process but did not make it to the final list, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. They argued that they should be considered for appointment against vacancies arising from selected candidates not joining, based on Rule 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Adhikari Service Rules, 1978 (1978 Rules). The High Court allowed the writ petition, but the Supreme Court overturned this decision.

Timeline

Date Event
22.06.2015 Advertisement for 3587 Group ‘C’ Posts of Gram Panchayat Adhikari.
11.05.2015 Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment to Group ‘C’ Posts (Mode and Procedure) Rules, 2015 came into effect.
22.11.2016 Amendment to the 1978 Rules.
24.12.2016 Final result of the selection process declared.
April-May 2017 Appointment letters issued.
09.08.2018 Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed the writ petition.
30.10.2019 Review application filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh was dismissed by the High Court.
12.12.2022 Supreme Court of India delivered the judgment.

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad initially dismissed the writ petition filed by the candidates who were not selected. However, a Division Bench of the same High Court overturned this decision, stating that Rule 15 of the 1978 Rules allows for the consideration of candidates who were on the “waiting list.” The State of Uttar Pradesh then filed a review application, arguing that the 2015 Rules should apply, not the 1978 Rules. The review application was dismissed. Subsequently, the State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

  • Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchayat Adhikari Service Rules, 1978: These rules governed the appointment to the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari. Rule 15(4) stated: “The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of candidates in order of merit as disclosed by the marks obtained in the interview. The number of the names in the list shall be larger (but no larger by more than 25 per cent) than the number of the vacancies.”
  • Government Order dated 15.11.1999: This order dispensed with the concept of a waiting list, except for single-post selections. It transferred the selection process to the Public Service Commission for all posts in the state.
  • Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission Act, 2014: This act established the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission to conduct timely selections for Group ‘C’ posts. Section 15 of the act empowers the Commission to conduct examinations and interviews for the selection of candidates.
  • Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment to Group ‘C’ Posts (Mode and Procedure) Rules, 2015: These rules outline the procedure for direct recruitment to Group ‘C’ posts, including a written examination followed by an interview. Rule 2 states that these rules have an overriding effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other service rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. These rules do not provide for any waiting list.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellant (State of Uttar Pradesh):

  • The 2015 Rules, being a later law with a non-obstante clause, take precedence over the 1978 Rules.
  • The two sets of rules are inconsistent, particularly regarding the recruitment authority and process.
  • The 2016 amendment to the 1978 Rules was merely clarificatory and did not change the position.
  • The candidates who participated in the selection process under the 2015 Rules are estopped from claiming appointment under the 1978 Rules.
  • The 1999 Government Order eliminates the concept of a waiting list, except for single-post selections.
See also  Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Section 138 NI Act in Cases of Settlement: Gimpex Private Limited vs. Manoj Goel (2021) INSC 580 (08 October 2021)

Arguments of the Respondents (Unsuccessful Candidates):

  • The 1978 Rules are a special law governing the specific post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, and therefore, the 2015 Rules should not override them.
  • Rule 15(4) of the 1978 Rules provides for a waiting list.
  • The 1978 Rules were in force until the 2016 amendment, and the rules of the game cannot be changed after the selection process has begun.
  • The candidates have a vested right to appointment against advertised posts that remain unfilled.
Main Submission Sub-Submissions (Appellant) Sub-Submissions (Respondents)
Applicability of Rules ✓ The 2015 Rules, being a later law with a non-obstante clause, take precedence over the 1978 Rules.
✓ The two sets of rules are inconsistent, particularly regarding the recruitment authority and process. 		✓ The 1978 Rules are a special law governing the specific post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, and therefore, the 2015 Rules should not override them.
✓ Rule 15(4) of the 1978 Rules provides for a waiting list.
Validity of Selection Process ✓ The 2016 amendment to the 1978 Rules was merely clarificatory and did not change the position.
✓ The candidates who participated in the selection process under the 2015 Rules are estopped from claiming appointment under the 1978 Rules. 		✓ The 1978 Rules were in force until the 2016 amendment, and the rules of the game cannot be changed after the selection process has begun.
✓ The candidates have a vested right to appointment against advertised posts that remain unfilled.
Waiting List ✓ The 1999 Government Order eliminates the concept of a waiting list, except for single-post selections. ✓ The 1978 Rules provide for a waiting list.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was whether the candidates who participated in the selection process under the 2015 Rules could claim a right to appointment based on the 1978 Rules, particularly Rule 15(4), which they argued provided for a waiting list.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Issue Court’s Decision Brief Reasons
Whether the candidates who participated in the selection process under the 2015 Rules could claim a right to appointment based on the 1978 Rules No. The Court held that the 2015 Rules take precedence over the 1978 Rules due to a non-obstante clause and the inconsistency between the two sets of rules. The candidates were estopped from claiming appointment under the 1978 Rules after participating in the selection process under the 2015 Rules.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Authority Court How Considered Legal Point
Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 127 Supreme Court of India Followed A later general law will override a prior special law if the two are so repugnant to each other that they cannot co-exist.
Mohan Karan v. State of U.P. (1998) 3 SCC 444 Supreme Court of India Cited Regarding the selection process.
Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1997) 8 SCC 488 Supreme Court of India Cited Regarding the selection process.
Anupal Singh v. State of U.P. (2020) 2 SCC 173 Supreme Court of India Followed A candidate who has participated in the selection process is estopped from questioning it later.
Union of India v. G.R. Prabhavalkar (1973) 4 SCC 183 Supreme Court of India Cited Regarding the selection process.
S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala (2009) 2 SCC 479 Supreme Court of India Cited Regarding the selection process.
Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala (2010) 4 SCC 498 Supreme Court of India Distinguished The facts of the case were different from the present case.
V. K. Girija v. Reshma Parayil (2019) 2 SCC 347 Supreme Court of India Distinguished The facts of the case were different from the present case.
Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat (2020) 4 SCC 702 Supreme Court of India Distinguished The facts of the case were different from the present case.
State of U.P. & Anr. v. Rajiv Kumar Srivastava & Anr. SLP (C) CC No. 10604 of 2013 dated 26.07.2013 Supreme Court of India Distinguished The effect of the relevant rules was not considered in the case.
K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512 Supreme Court of India Distinguished The facts of the case were different from the present case.
Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. v. South East Central Railway & Others (2019) 12 SCC 798 Supreme Court of India Distinguished The facts of the case were different from the present case.
Union of India v. N Murugesan (2022) 2 SCC 25 Supreme Court of India Followed On the principle of approbate and reprobate.
Vallampati Sathish Babu v. State of A.P. (Civil Appeal No. 2473 of 2022) Supreme Court of India Followed There is no vested right of the unsuccessful candidate to insist upon their consideration, in the absence of any such rule requiring for the preparation of a waiting-list.
See also  Supreme Court quashes conviction in public property damage case due to flawed identification parade: Gireesan Nair vs. State of Kerala (2022)

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

  • Article 309 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the legislature to make laws regarding the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services.
  • Section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission Act, 2014: This section outlines the powers and duties of the Commission, including conducting examinations and interviews for the selection of candidates.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Submission Court’s Treatment
The 2015 Rules, being a later law with a non-obstante clause, take precedence over the 1978 Rules. Accepted. The Court held that the 2015 Rules, with their non-obstante clause, override the 1978 Rules due to the inconsistency between the two sets of rules.
The two sets of rules are inconsistent, particularly regarding the recruitment authority and process. Accepted. The Court found that the 1978 Rules and the 2015 Rules had different recruitment authorities and processes, leading to inconsistency.
The 2016 amendment to the 1978 Rules was merely clarificatory and did not change the position. Accepted. The Court clarified that the 2016 amendment was clarificatory and did not change the fact that the 2015 Rules governed the selection process.
The candidates who participated in the selection process under the 2015 Rules are estopped from claiming appointment under the 1978 Rules. Accepted. The Court applied the principle of estoppel, stating that candidates who participated in the selection process under the 2015 Rules could not later claim appointment under the 1978 Rules.
The 1999 Government Order eliminates the concept of a waiting list, except for single-post selections. Partially Accepted. The Court clarified that the 1999 GO dispenses with the concept of a waiting list except for single-post selections.
The 1978 Rules are a special law governing the specific post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, and therefore, the 2015 Rules should not override them. Rejected. The Court held that despite being a special law, the 1978 Rules were overridden by the later 2015 Rules due to the inconsistency between the two.
Rule 15(4) of the 1978 Rules provides for a waiting list. Rejected. The Court clarified that even under the 1978 Rules, the list was only to facilitate filling up of vacancies and not a waiting list for future appointments.
The 1978 Rules were in force until the 2016 amendment, and the rules of the game cannot be changed after the selection process has begun. Rejected. The Court held that the 2015 Rules governed the selection process, and the 2016 amendment was clarificatory.
The candidates have a vested right to appointment against advertised posts that remain unfilled. Rejected. The Court held that there is no vested right of the unsuccessful candidate to insist upon their consideration, in the absence of any such rule requiring for the preparation of a waiting-list.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • The Court followed the principle laid down in Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 127 that a later general law will override a prior special law if the two are so repugnant to each other that they cannot co-exist.
  • The Court cited Mohan Karan v. State of U.P. (1998) 3 SCC 444, Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1997) 8 SCC 488, and Union of India v. G.R. Prabhavalkar (1973) 4 SCC 183 and S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala (2009) 2 SCC 479 in the context of the selection process.
  • The Court followed the principle laid down in Anupal Singh v. State of U.P. (2020) 2 SCC 173 that a candidate who has participated in the selection process is estopped from questioning it later.
  • The Court distinguished the facts in Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala (2010) 4 SCC 498, V. K. Girija v. Reshma Parayil (2019) 2 SCC 347, Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat (2020) 4 SCC 702, State of U.P. & Anr. v. Rajiv Kumar Srivastava & Anr. SLP (C) CC No. 10604 of 2013 dated 26.07.2013, K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512, and Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. v. South East Central Railway & Others (2019) 12 SCC 798 stating that the facts of the case were different from the present case.
  • The Court followed the principle of approbate and reprobate as laid down in Union of India v. N Murugesan (2022) 2 SCC 25.
  • The Court followed the principle laid down in Vallampati Sathish Babu v. State of A.P. (Civil Appeal No. 2473 of 2022) that there is no vested right of the unsuccessful candidate to insist upon their consideration, in the absence of any such rule requiring for the preparation of a waiting-list.
See also  Supreme Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case: Sanjay Raghunath Agarwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement (20 April 2023)

The Supreme Court held that the 2015 Rules, being a later law with a non-obstante clause, would take precedence over the 1978 Rules. The Court also noted that the 2015 Rules do not provide for a waiting list. The Court emphasized that candidates who participated in the selection process under the 2015 Rules were estopped from claiming appointment under the 1978 Rules. The Court stated that the 1978 Rules do not exist in the statute once the 2015 Rules came into being.

The Court observed, “A candidate who has participated in the selection process adopted under the 2015 Rules is estopped and has acquiesced himself from questioning it thereafter”. The Court further stated, “It is not open to the candidate to contend to the contrary so that he can have the best of both sets of rules.” Additionally, the Court noted, “Even under the 1978 Rules, we do not find the existence of any waiting-list in operation to be filled up at a later point of time, when a certain candidate does not join.”

The Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and restored the order of the learned Single Judge.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a later law with a non-obstante clause overrides an earlier law, especially when the two are inconsistent. The Court also emphasized the principle of estoppel, preventing candidates from challenging a selection process they had willingly participated in. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the fact that the 2015 Rules did not provide for a waiting list.

Sentiment Percentage
Rule of Law and Legal Precedence 40%
Estoppel and Acquiescence 30%
Absence of Waiting List 20%
Consistency and Fairness 10%
Ratio Percentage
Fact 30%
Law 70%

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by legal considerations (70%) rather than factual aspects (30%). The court emphasized the importance of applying the correct legal provisions, particularly the non-obstante clause in the 2015 Rules and the principle of estoppel.

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Can candidates claim appointment under the 1978 Rules after participating in a selection under the 2015 Rules?
↓
Step 1: Determine applicable rules.
↓
Step 2: Analyze the non-obstante clause in the 2015 Rules.
↓
Step 3: Assess the inconsistency between the 1978 and 2015 Rules.
↓
Step 4: Apply the principle of estoppel.
↓
Step 5: Conclude that the 2015 Rules govern the selection process and no waiting list exists.
↓
Final Decision: The candidates cannot claim appointment under the 1978 Rules.

Key Takeaways

  • Later laws with a non-obstante clause override earlier conflicting laws.
  • Candidates who participate in a selection process are generally estopped from challenging it later.
  • The concept of a waiting list is not automatic and must be explicitly provided for in the rules.
  • Employers have flexibility in selecting employees, and courts will only interfere if the selection process is arbitrary or contrary to law.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and restored the order of the learned Single Judge.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a later general law with a non-obstante clause will override a prior special law if the two are inconsistent. Further, it clarifies that candidates who participate in a selection process are estopped from challenging it later. This judgment reinforces the principle that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has started, and that a waiting list must be explicitly provided for in the rules, rather than assumed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh Kumar & Ors. clarifies the rules governing appointments for Gram Panchayat Adhikari posts in Uttar Pradesh. The Court held that the 2015 Rules, being a later law with a non-obstante clause, would take precedence over the 1978 Rules. The Court also emphasized that candidates who participated in the selection process under the 2015 Rules were estopped from claiming appointment under the 1978 Rules. This decision sets a precedent for future cases involving conflicting service rules and the concept of waiting lists in government appointments.

Source: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh Kumar & Ors.