LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a revised requisition of vacancies by the government, after the initial advertisement, is valid if it aims to correct a miscalculation and comply with reservation policies.

CASE TYPE: Service Law

Case Name: Anupal Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and Others

[Judgment Date]: 30 September 2019

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 30 September 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1037

Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can a government body alter the number of reserved category vacancies after a recruitment process has begun? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the recruitment of Technical Assistants in Uttar Pradesh. The core issue revolved around whether a revised vacancy list, issued after the initial advertisement, was legal and justified. This judgment clarifies the extent to which a government can modify recruitment criteria during an ongoing selection process to rectify errors and comply with reservation policies.

Case Background

The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) issued an advertisement on 22 October 2013, for 6628 vacancies for Subordinate Agriculture Services, Cadre-III (Technical Assistant Group-C). The initial distribution of vacancies was as follows:

  • Unreserved: 3616
  • Scheduled Castes (SC): 2211
  • Scheduled Tribes (ST): 235
  • Other Backward Classes (OBC): 566

A written examination was conducted on 30 March 2014. Following this, the State Government realized that there had been a miscalculation of category-wise vacancies. Specifically, diploma holders who should have been appointed under the “Unreserved quota” were wrongly appointed under the “OBC quota.”

To rectify this, the State Government revised the vacancies on 20 August 2014, after consulting the Department of Personnel. The revised distribution was:

  • Unreserved: 2515
  • Scheduled Castes (SC): 1882
  • Scheduled Tribes (ST): 201
  • Other Backward Classes (OBC): 2030

The UPPSC declared the results of the written exam on 15 September 2014, and issued an office memorandum on 12 October 2014, reflecting the revised vacancies. Interviews were held starting 27 October 2014. The final results were declared on 21 May 2015, with some candidates not qualifying.

Timeline

Date Event
22 October 2013 UPPSC issued advertisement for 6628 Technical Assistant vacancies.
30 March 2014 Written examination held.
20 August 2014 State Government approved revised vacancies.
15 September 2014 UPPSC declared results of the written examination.
12 October 2014 UPPSC issued office memorandum notifying revised vacancies.
27 October 2014 onwards Interviews held.
21 May 2015 Final results declared.
10 February 2017 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad quashed the selection process after the written exam.
30 September 2019 Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and upheld the revised selection.

Course of Proceedings

Unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the revised vacancy list and the final selection. They argued that changing the number of vacancies in different categories was illegal and amounted to changing the rules of the game mid-selection. They also contended that the reservation percentages for SC/ST and OBC exceeded the 50% limit.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the selection process after the written examination. The court reasoned that:

  • Adjusting diploma holders against the open category was improper.
  • Changing the number of vacancies after the written exam violated Rule 15(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Agriculture Services Rules, 1993.
  • The final selection had 88% reserved category candidates and only 12% open category candidates, contravening Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994.

The High Court directed the Principal Secretary, State of U.P., to send a fresh requisition to the UPPSC based on quantifiable data and cadre strength to conduct a fresh interview process.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily concerns the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

  • Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994: This section mandates specific percentages of vacancies to be reserved for Scheduled Castes (21%), Scheduled Tribes (2%), and Other Backward Classes (27%). It also stipulates that the total reservation should not exceed 50% in any recruitment year.

    “In public services and posts, there shall be reservation at the stage of direct recruitment, the following percentage of vacancies to which recruitments are to be made in accordance with the roster referred to in sub-section (5), in favour of the persons, belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes of citizens:-
    a.In the case of Scheduled Castes – twenty-one per cent;
    b.In the case of Scheduled Tribes – two per cent;
    c.In the case of Other Backward Classes of citizens – twenty-seven per cent”
  • Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994: This section empowers the State Government to entrust responsibility for compliance with the Act to any officer or authority.

    “The State Government may by notified order, entrust the appointing authority or any officer or employee with the responsibility of ensuring the compliance of the provisions of this Act.”
  • Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994: This section provides penal provisions for any officer who wilfully contravenes the Act.

    “Any appointing authority or officer or employee entrusted with the responsibility under Section 4(1) who wilfully acts in a manner intended to contravene or defeat the purposes of the Act, shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine…..”
  • Rule 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Agriculture Services Rules, 1993: This rule specifies that the recruitment authority will determine the number of vacancies to be filled and the number of vacancies for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other categories.

    “The Recruitment Authority would determine the number of vacancies to be filled during the year and would also determine the number of vacancies for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other categories candidates under Rule 6.”
  • Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Agriculture Services Rules, 1993: This rule stipulates that reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other Backward Class candidates would be done according to the orders of the Government prevalent at the time of the appointment.

    “reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Class candidates would be done according to the orders of the Government prevalent at the time of the appointment.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

  • The revised requisition was in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994.
  • There were no allegations of malafide or arbitrariness to vitiate the selection process.
  • The revised office memorandum was based on the revised requisition, and only the breakup of vacancies was reworked.
  • The eligibility criteria were not changed, and the High Court erred in relying on K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2008) 3 SCC 512 and Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC 11.
  • The private respondents, having participated in the interview, were estopped from challenging the selection process.
  • The State had the power to rectify the number of vacancies to fulfill the constitutional mandate of reservation.
  • The total number of vacancies was not changed, only the category-wise distribution.
  • The High Court did not consider the detailed counter-affidavit filed by the State explaining the reasons for the revised requisition.
  • The private respondents did not show how they were affected by the increase in OBC posts.
  • Non-impleading of successful candidates was fatal to the writ petition.

State’s Submissions:

  • The revised requisition was a mere rectification of a mistake in the calculation of vacancies.
  • The absorption of diploma holders against the “General quota” was justified.
  • The appointments were within the permissible statutory limits.
  • 906 candidates were not given appointments to stay within the reservation limits under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994.

Private Respondents’ Submissions:

  • Changing the number of vacancies was a violation of statutory provisions and Rule 15(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Agriculture Services Rules, 1993.
  • The revised vacancies infringed the constitutional mandate and deprived candidates of opportunities to appear in the interview.
  • The office memorandum changing the number of vacancies was arbitrary.
  • The rules of the game were changed during the selection process.
  • Individual notices to selected candidates were not required, as per Union of India and others v. O. Chakradhar (2002) 3 SCC 146.
  • The judgment in other writ petitions, which were not challenged, operates as res judicata.
  • Horizontal reservation was not correctly applied.
  • The adjustment of diploma holders against the “general quota” was erroneous.
  • The terms and conditions of selection were set out in the advertisement and could not be altered subsequently, relying on N.T. Devin Katti and others v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others (1990) 3 SCC 157.

Sub-Submissions Categorized by Main Submissions

Main Submission Appellants’ Sub-Submissions Respondents’ Sub-Submissions
Validity of Revised Requisition
  • In accordance with UP Reservation Act, 1994.
  • No malafide or arbitrariness.
  • Mere rectification of wrongful calculation.
  • Violation of statutory provisions and Rule 15(3).
  • Infringed constitutional mandate.
  • Arbitrary change in vacancies.
Change in Rules of Selection
  • Eligibility criteria not changed.
  • Only category-wise breakup reworked.
  • Rules of the game changed mid-selection.
  • Deprived candidates of interview opportunities.
Estoppel
  • Private respondents participated in interview without protest.
  • Violation of rules and constitutional mandate.
Diploma Holders Absorption
  • Absorption against “General Quota” was correct.
  • Adjustment against “General Quota” was erroneous.
Horizontal Reservation
  • Filling as per government policy.
  • Not correctly applied.
Res Judicata
  • Common judgment; single appeal sufficient.
  • Judgment in other writ petitions operate as res judicata.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for determination:

  1. Whether the revised requisition dated 20 August 2014, and the office memorandum of UPPSC dated 12 October 2014, were merely rectifications of wrongful calculations of category-wise vacancies?
  2. Whether the revised office memorandum dated 12 October 2014, suffered from arbitrariness?
  3. Whether the office memorandum dated 12 October 2014, revising the breakup of vacancies amounted to a change in the rules of the game during the selection process?
  4. Whether the unsuccessful candidates, having participated in the interview, were estopped from challenging the selection?
  5. Whether the High Court was right in examining the legality of the regularization of diploma holders when it was not under challenge in the writ petitions?
  6. Whether the revised requisition of vacancies caused prejudice to the General/Unreserved category candidates?
  7. Whether 906 candidates were entitled to seek direction for the issuance of appointment orders?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Issue Court’s Decision Brief Reasoning
Whether the revised requisition was a mere rectification of wrongful calculation? Yes The revised requisition corrected the miscalculation of OBC quota and ensured compliance with the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994.
Whether the revised office memorandum suffered from arbitrariness? No The revision was based on a detailed inquiry and aimed to rectify errors in the initial requisition.
Whether revising the breakup of vacancies amounted to a change in the rules of the game? No The eligibility criteria remained unchanged, and the revision was to rectify errors and comply with reservation policies.
Whether the unsuccessful candidates were estopped from challenging the selection? Yes Having participated in the interview without protest, the candidates were estopped from challenging the selection process later.
Whether the High Court was right in examining the legality of the regularization of diploma holders? No The regularization of diploma holders was not under challenge in the writ petitions.
Whether the revised requisition caused prejudice to the General/Unreserved category candidates? No The revision was to ensure proper representation of all categories and did not cause any prejudice to the General category candidates.
Whether 906 candidates were entitled to seek direction for the issuance of appointment orders? No Issuing appointment orders to the 906 candidates would exceed the permissible reservation limits under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Authority Court Legal Point How the Authority was used
R.K. Sabharwal and others v. State of Punjab and others (1995) 2 SCC 745 Supreme Court of India Percentage of reservation The court reiterated that the percentage of reservation has to be worked out in relation to the number of posts which form the cadre strength.
K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2008) 3 SCC 512 Supreme Court of India Changing rules of the game Distinguished; the court held that the case was different as the present case was about correcting a calculation error, not changing the selection criteria.
Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC 11 Supreme Court of India Changing rules of the game Distinguished; the court held that the case was different as the present case was about correcting a calculation error, not changing the selection criteria.
Union of India and Others v. O. Chakradhar (2002) 3 SCC 146 Supreme Court of India Need for individual notices Distinguished; the court held that the case was different as the present case did not involve any misconduct in the selection process.
Madan Lal and Others v. State of J&K and Others (1995) 3 SCC 486 Supreme Court of India Estoppel The court held that a person having consciously participated in the interview cannot turn around and challenge the selection process.
K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others (2006) 6 SCC 395 Supreme Court of India Estoppel The court held that the candidates having participated in the interview, it is not open to them to challenge the selection process.
Union of India and Others v. S. Vinodh Kumar and Others (2007) 8 SCC 100 Supreme Court of India Estoppel The court reiterated that a candidate cannot challenge the selection process after participating in it.
Sadananda Halo and Others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Others (2008) 4 SCC 619 Supreme Court of India Estoppel The court reiterated that unsuccessful candidates cannot challenge the selection process.
Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple and Another v. Meenakashi Ammal and Others (2015) 3 SCC 624 Supreme Court of India Res Judicata Distinguished; the court held that the case was different as the present case had a common judgment with common reasonings.
M/s Shenoy and Co., Represented by its partner Bele Srinivasa Rao Street, Bangalore and Others v. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle II, Bangalore and Others (1985) 2 SCC 512 Supreme Court of India Binding nature of judgment The court held that the judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on all concerned whether they were parties to the judgment or not.
Director of Settlements, A.P. and Others v. M.R. Apparao and Another (2002) 4 SCC 638 Supreme Court of India Binding nature of judgment The court reiterated that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.
Fida Hussain and others v. Moradabad Development Authority and Another (2011) 12 SCC 615 Supreme Court of India Binding nature of judgment The court reiterated the principle that the judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on all concerned.
Poonam v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2016) 2 SCC 779 Supreme Court of India Impleadment of successful candidates The court held that successful candidates should be put on notice when their selection is challenged.
State of Bihar and Others v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra (2006) 12 SCC 561 Supreme Court of India Right to appointment The court held that selected candidates do not have any indefeasible right to be appointed.
Ramji Veerji Patel and Others v. Revenue Divisional Officer and Others (2011) 10 SCC 643 Supreme Court of India Power under Article 142 The court held that the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised very carefully and sparingly.
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Another (1998) 4 SCC 409 Supreme Court of India Power under Article 142 The court held that the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be used to supplant the substantive law applicable to the case.
Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others (2013) 4 SCC 540 Supreme Court of India Changing the rules of the game Referred to a larger bench to reconsider the principle that rules of the game cannot be changed after the selection has commenced.
N.T. Devin Katti and others v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others (1990) 3 SCC 157 Supreme Court of India Terms of advertisement The court held that the rights of candidates are to be considered in accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of the advertisement.
Government of India through Secretary and another v. Ravi Prakash Gupta and another (2010) 7 SCC 626 Supreme Court of India Terms of advertisement The court held that the State erred in revising the requisition of vacancies which prejudicially affected the interest of the candidates.
Union of India and Others v. Permanand Singh 1999 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 625 Supreme Court of India Article 142 Cited by the appellants in support of their contention to exercise power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
D.M. Premkumari v. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore Division and Others (2009) 12 SCC 267 Supreme Court of India Article 142 Cited by the appellants in support of their contention to exercise power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Judgment

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

Submission Court’s Treatment
Appellants’ submission that the revised requisition was in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994. Accepted. The court held that the revised requisition was to rectify the miscalculation and comply with the Act.
Appellants’ submission that there were no allegations of malafide or arbitrariness to vitiate the selection process. Accepted. The court found no evidence of malafide or arbitrariness.
Appellants’ submission that the revised office memorandum was based on the revised requisition, and only the breakup of vacancies was reworked. Accepted. The court agreed that the revised memorandum was based on the revised requisition.
Appellants’ submission that the eligibility criteria were not changed, and the High Court erred in relying on K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2008) 3 SCC 512 and Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC 11. Accepted. The court distinguished the present case from the cited cases.
Appellants’ submission that the private respondents, having participated in the interview, were estopped from challenging the selection process. Accepted. The court applied the principle of estoppel.
Appellants’ submission that the State had the power to rectify the number of vacancies to fulfill the constitutional mandate of reservation. Accepted. The court agreed that the State had the power to rectify the number of vacancies to fulfill the constitutional mandate of reservation.
Appellants’ submission that the total number of vacancies was not changed, only the category-wise distribution. Accepted. The court noted that the total number of vacancies remained the same.
Appellants’ submission that the High Court did not consider the detailed counter-affidavit filed by the State explaining the reasons for the revised requisition. Accepted. The court observed that the High Court did not properly consider the State’s counter-affidavit.
Appellants’ submission that the private respondents did not show how they were affected by the increase in OBC posts. Accepted. The court noted that the private respondents did not demonstrate how they were affected.
Appellants’ submission that non-impleading of successful candidates was fatal to the writ petition. Not addressed. The court did not go into this question in view of the order passed by the High Court dated 04.06.2015.
State’s submission that the revised requisition was a mere rectification of a mistake in the calculation of vacancies. Accepted. The court agreed that the revised requisition was to correct a calculation error.
State’s submission that the absorption of diploma holders against the “General quota” was justified. Accepted. The court agreed that the absorption of diploma holders was against the “General quota”.
State’s submission that the appointments were within the permissible statutory limits. Partially Accepted. The court held that the appointments were within the permissible statutory limits, except for the 906 candidates.
State’s submission that 906 candidates were not given appointments to stay within the reservation limits under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994. Accepted. The court agreed that appointments to the 906 candidates would exceed the permissible limits.
Private Respondents’ submission that changing the number of vacancies was a violation of statutory provisions and Rule 15(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Agriculture Services Rules, 1993. Rejected. The court held that the revision was to rectify an error and comply with reservation policies, not a change in the rules of the game.
Private Respondents’ submission that the revised vacancies infringed the constitutional mandate and deprived candidates of opportunities to appear in the interview. Rejected. The court held that the revision was to ensure proper representation and did not deprive candidates of opportunities.
Private Respondents’ submission that the office memorandum changing the number of vacancies was arbitrary. Rejected. The court found that the revision was based on a detailed inquiry and was not arbitrary.
Private Respondents’ submission that the rules of the game were changed during the selection process. Rejected. The court held that the eligibility criteria remained the same, and the revision was to correct an error.
Private Respondents’ submission that individual notices to selected candidates were not required, as per Union of India and others v. O. Chakradhar (2002) 3 SCC 146. Distinguished. The court held that the case was different as the present case did not involve any misconduct in the selection process.
Private Respondents’ submission that the judgment in other writ petitions, which were not challenged, operates as res judicata. Rejected. The court held that the case was different as the present case had a common judgment with common reasonings.
Private Respondents’ submission that horizontal reservation was not correctly applied. Not addressed. The court did not go into this question in view of the order passed by the High Court dated 04.06.2015.
Private Respondents’ submission that the adjustment of diploma holders against the “general quota” was erroneous. Rejected. The court held that the absorption of diploma holders was against the “General quota”.
Private Respondents’ submission that the terms and conditions of selection were set out in the advertisement and could not be altered subsequently, relying on N.T. Devin Katti and others v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others (1990) 3 SCC 157. Distinguished. The court held that the case was different as the present case was about correcting a calculation error, not changing the selection criteria.

Ratio Decidendi:

  • A government body can revise a vacancy list after the initial advertisement if the revision is to correct a miscalculation and comply with reservation policies.
  • The revision should not change the eligibility criteria or other fundamental aspects of the selection process.
  • Candidates who participate in the selection process without protest are estopped from challenging the process later.
  • The power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India should be used very carefully and sparingly.

Final Order:

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and upheld the selection process based on the revised vacancy list. The court, however, clarified that the 906 candidates who were not given appointments would not be entitled to seek direction for the issuance of appointment orders as it would exceed the permissible reservation limits under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994.

Flowchart of the Case

Initial Advertisement (22 Oct 2013)
↓
Written Exam (30 Mar 2014)
↓
Revised Vacancies (20 Aug 2014)
↓
Results Declared (15 Sep 2014)
↓
Interviews (27 Oct 2014 onwards)
↓
Final Results (21 May 2015)
↓
High Court Quashes Selection (10 Feb 2017)
↓
Supreme Court Upholds Selection (30 Sep 2019)

Ratio of Vacancies

The following table shows the ratio of vacancies before and after the revision:

Category Initial Vacancies Revised Vacancies
Unreserved 3616 2515
Scheduled Castes (SC) 2211 1882
Scheduled Tribes (ST) 235 201
Other Backward Classes (OBC) 566 2030

Source: Anupal Singh vs. State of UP