# Maya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1547
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-12-04
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 3129 (S/S) of 2008
- **Bench:** Shri Narayan Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/maya-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-42360
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

3 All] Maya V. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
1547
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.12.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA, J.

Writ Petition No. 3129 (S/S) of 2008

Maya

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh through its Chief
Secretary Chief Secretariat, Lucknow and
others

 ...Opposite Parties

Constitution of India, Article 14-Right to
get appointment-Petitioner applied for
selection
under
special
recruitmentderive for SC/ST under backlog quotagot selected after facing written as well
as interview-government canceled the
entire selection-again selection process
started with the under chairmanship of
another officer-petitioner also applied
but
could
not
succeeded-claim
the
appointment on the basis of earlier
selection-petition
dismissed
as
the
petitioner participated in subsequent
selection without any protest-after being
unsuccessful-held-could not question of
validity of selection process-in view of
law laid down by the Apex Court-Court
declined to interfere-petition dismissed.

Held: Para-31

In the light of the decisions discussed,
herein above, I am of the considered
opinion that even the petitioners being
empanalled in the select list have no
right to claim appointment save violation
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the instant case no element of
discrimination exists.
Case Law discussed:
(2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 600; (2003) 7
Supreme Court Cases 285; (2008) 4 Supreme
Court Cases 171; (1998) 3 SCC 45; 1993 supp.
(2) Supreme Court Cases 600; (1995) 3
Supreme Court Cases 486; (1991) 3 Supreme
Court Cases 47

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shri Narayan
Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.C.
Yadav, learned counsel for opposite parties
no. 6 to 14 and Mr. Rohit Verma, learned
Standing Counsel.

2. In substance the petitioners are
aggrieved with the constitution of the
Selection
Committee
under
the
Chairmanship of Mr Arun Kumar Khare as
well as against non implementation of the
recommendations
of
the
Selection
Committee
constituted
under
the
chairmanship of Mr S.S. Singh Yadav.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are
that the State Government took a decision
to fill up the vacancies of different posts of
the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
category under the back log quota.The
advertisements
were
issued
inviting
applications. The Director, Ground Water
Department, U.P., i.e. opposite party No. 3
constituted a selection committee on 19th
September, 2007. One Sri C.S. Agarwal,
Executive Engineer was nominated as
Chairman of the said committee along with
four other persons as members of the
committee. The petitioners applied against
the different posts.

4. Since Selection Committee
constituted under the chairmanship of Mr
Agrawal was not proceeding speedily, the
O.P. 3 replaced Mr Agrawal by Sri S.S.
Singh Yadav. This Selection Committee
held written examination as well as
interview for some post advertised through
different advertisements.

5. The petitioners claim that they
appeared in the examination and interview
1548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
against the respective posts. The Selection
Committee
after
holding
written
examination
as
well
as
interview
forwarded its recommendations to the
opposite
party
no.
3
for
issuing
appointment
orders
but
instead
of
implementing the same, the opposite party
no.
3
constituted
a new
Selection
Committee in which he nominated to
himself as Chairman by means of Office
Memorandum dated 4th February, 2008.
The petitioners claim that since opposite
party no.3 was interested to select his
favorite persons, he malafidely cancelled
earlier Selection Committee headed by
Shri S.S. Singh Yadav. It is further stated
that the Opposite Party no. 3 issued a back
dated order on 4th February, 2008,
constituting a new Selection Committee,
which was absolutely arbitrary, illegal and
without jurisdiction and full of mala fide.
However, by means of another order dated
8.2.2008, the opposite party no. 2, i.e,
Principal Secretary of the Department, on
the event of constitution of fresh selection
committee, issued a notice to the opposite
party no. 3 to show cause for committing
delay in selection of the back log quota.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that
meanwhile, the State Government issued
directions on 11th and 23 rd January, 2008
to complete the selection process and if the
process of interview has been completed,
issue the appointment orders.

7. The petitioners submit that their
names were recommended for appointment
on the respective posts. On enquiry it
revealed to the petitioners that vide order
dated 7 th November, 2000, another
Selection Committee was constituted who
made selection of 20 posts of Regional
Assistant and 9 posts of Data Processor as
well as against other posts also, whereas,
against
the
said
selection
several
complaints were made. On the aforesaid
back drop the petitioner based her claim of
appointment on the respective post on the
basis of recommendation of the Selection
Committee, headed by Mr S.S. Yadav.

8. In reply learned Standing Counsel
submitted that in order to fulfill the back
log quota, the State Government initiated
special drive to make selection, in
pursuance thereto advertisements were
issued. A Selection Committee was
constituted under the chairmanship of Mr
C.S. Agrawal but since the Committee was
moving slow and also misbehaving and
disobeying the directions issued by the
State Government as well as opposite party
no.3, a new Committee was constituted
under the chairmanship of Mr S.S. Singh
Yadav, who proceeded for selection under
Rule 5(6) of U.P. Rules 2002. Under the
aforesaid rule, it is provided that after
completion of selection process, the select
list would be provided to the appointing
authority.

9. It is stated that the appointing
authority is the respondent no. 3 whereas
the Selection Committee sent the select list
directly to the State Government without
informing opposing party no.3, which
exposed secrecy of the selection, therefore,
respondent no. 3 cancelled the Selection
Committee
and
constituted
a
fresh
Selection
Committee
under
the
chairmanship of Mr M.M. Ansari by
means of office memorandum dated 4th
February, 2008. On the complaint, the
State Government interfered with the
matter and restrained the Committee to
work. Therefore, respondent no. 3 again
cancelled
the
Selection
Committee
constituted by the Office Memorandum
dated 4.2.2008.
3 All] Maya V. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
1549

10. Respondent no. 3 also submitted
reply to the State Government as he was
asked to explain his conduct. Since the
State
Government
had
shown
its
satisfaction
with
the
explanation
of
respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 3
constituted new Selection Committee
under the Chairmanship of one Sri Arun
Kumar Khare to proceed a fresh. In order
to proceed a fresh selection again an
advertisement was issued fixing the date of
interview in which all the candidates, who
had applied earlier pursuant to different
advertisements were allowed to participate.
This time Selection Committee completed
the selection process on the basis of which
the appointment letters have been issued.

11. The petitioners participated in
interview. They did not raise any objection
at that stage. This time the Committee
recommended the candidates for selection.
In pursuance of the said recommendations,
respondent no. 3 issued appointment orders
to the candidates on 11.6.2008. The
petitioners,
whose
names
were
not
recommended by the Committee, since
they could not succeed in the selection,
now at this stage they have filed writ
petitions challenging the publication dated
23.5.2008. It is further stated that the
petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate
at the same time. The respondent has also
categorically given the details of the
recommendation
of
the
erstwhile
committees.

12. One fact that has also been
pointed out by learned Standing counsel
that
since
despite
the
fact
that
recommendation of the second committee
was not binding, the then Director Mr
M.M. Ansari made some appointments
pursuant to the said recommendation for
which he was put for departmental
enquiry. Mr Ansari challenged the same
before this Court through W.P.No. 35833
of 2010. The Inquiry Officer completed the
enquiry and submitted a report to the
disciplinary
authority,
i.e,
the
State
Government, who issued show cause
notice dated 16.3.2011 with proposed
punishment and also took consent of the
U.P.
Public
Service
Commission,
Allahabad. However, the decision on the
final
punishment
is
still
pending
consideration.

13. As per direction of this Court, the
learned
Standing
Counsel
produced
relevant
record
of
selection,
which
contains the recommendation of the
Selection Committee headed by Mr S.S.
Singh Yadav, Chairman of the Selection
Committee, upon perusal of which I find
that the said committee held interview
from 16.2.2008 to 26.2.2008 for 8 posts of
Data
Processor,
pursuant
to
the
advertisement no. 5 reserved for Scheduled
Castes and prepared a select list of 8
candidates and waiting list of 4 candidates.
The petitioner of W.P. No. 3129(SS) of
2008 is placed at serial no. 1 in the select
list. In the said record the select list of the
candidates for the post of Filed Assistant is
also available which contains the names of
18 candidates in the select list against 18
posts of Field Assistant and waiting list of
8 candidates. The selection was also
completed under the Chairmanship of Mr
S.S. Singh Yadav in which the petitioner is
placed at serial no.1.

14. In addition to the above
documents, the learned Standing Counsel
also placed the record of final selection
made by the Selection Committee under
the Chairmanship of Mr Arun Kumar
Khare.
The
committee
under
the
chairmanship of Sri Arun Kumar Khare
1550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
was constituted by the Director of
Department on 1.5.2008. It held the
interview of the candidates for the post of
Data Processor and prepared a select list of
9 candidates for selection against the post
of Data Processor, pursuant to the
advertisement nos. 3 and 5 in which the
petitioner's name does not find place.

15. The other petitioners also claim
that their names were recommended for
issuing appointment orders.

16. The petitioners claim the
respondents' action as arbitrary with the
submission that the recommendation of the
selection committee for their appointments
have been negated without any reason and
submit that same warrants interference by
this
Court
for
cancellation
of
the
subsequent selection made against the
same very post by another Selection
committee and they have also challenged
the appointment of the selected candidates.

17. In support of the petitioners'
claim, the learned counsel for the
petitioners cited a decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in the case of
A.P. Aggarwal Vs. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi and another (2000) 1 Supreme
Court Cases 600. In this case the
Selection Committee recommended a
panel of two names for consideration for
appointment by the Central Government.
The central Government appointed one
person but instead of appointing the
appellant, who was second person, chose
to cause a fresh advertisement to be issued
calling for fresh applications. Meanwhile,
the appellant made representations and
filed Original Application before the
Central Administrative Tribunal. The
Tribunal quashed the fresh advertisement
and issued directions to appoint the
appellant as a member. The respondent
contested the application on the ground
that the appellant did not get any right by
inclusion of his name in the panel. The
Tribunal opined that it was open to the
Government to resort to fresh selection
process and dismissed the appellant's
application. The appellant field a writ
petition before the High Court at Delhi
which was dismissed in limine. Then he
approached Hon'ble the Supreme Court.
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under;

"In our opinion, this is a case of
conferment of power together with a
discretion which goes with it to enable
proper exercise of the power and therefore
it is coupled with a duty to shun
arbitrariness in its exercise and to promote
the object for which the power is conferred
which undoubtedly is public interest and
not individual or private gain, whim or
caprice of any individual. Even if it is to be
said that the instructions contained in the
office memorandum dated 14.5.1987 are
discretionary and not mandatory, such
discretion is coupled with the duty to act in
a manner which will promote the object for
which the power is conferred and also
satisfy the mandatory requirement of the
statute. It is not therefore open to the
Government to ignore the panel which was
already approved and accepted by it and
resort to a fresh selection process without
giving any proper reason for resorting to
the same. It is not the case of the
Government at any state that the appellant
is not fit to occupy the post. No attempt
was made before the Tribunal or before
this Court to place any valid reason for
ignoring the appellant and launching a
fresh process of selection."

18. With the aforesaid observation
Hon'ble the Supreme Court allowed the
3 All] Maya V. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
1551
appeal and directed the respondents to
appoint the appellant as Member, Sales
Tax Appellate Tribunal as he is the only
other person in the panel of names selected
by the Select Committee and as nothing
has been brought out against him by the
Government.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further relied upon another decision of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court Union of
India and others Vs. Rajesh P.U.
Puthuvalnikathu and another (2003) 7
Supreme Court Cases 285. In this case a
list of selected candidates was cancelled by
the competent authority. Unsuccessful
candidates filed an application before the
Central Administrative Tribunal by making
allegations of favoritism and nepotism on
the part of the officers in conducting the
Physical Efficiency Test. The Tribunal
dismissed the application on the ground
that there was no legitimate cause of
action. Aggrieved applicants moved to the
Kerala High Court. The High Court
allowed the appeal and directed to correct
the mistakes in the selection by rearranging
the select list and completing the selection
as per the re-evaluation found to be
necessitated by the very Committee
constituted for analyzing the position and
in the light of its very report. The
appellants filed an appeal before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme
Court did not find any infirmity in the
judgment of the High Court and dismissed
the appeal.

20. On the other hand, learned
Standing Counsel placed reliance upon the
case of Dhananjay Malik and others Vs.
State of Uttranchal and others (2008) 4
Supreme Court Cases 171. In this case
Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that when
the petitioners appeared at the oral
interview conducted by the members
concerned of the Commission, who
interviewed the petitioners , the petitioners
took a chance to get themselves selected at
the said oral interview. Therefore, only
because they did not find themselves to
have emerged successful as a result of their
combined performance, they cannot turn
around and subsequently contend that the
Selection Committee was not properly
constituted and the process of interview
was unfair.

21. Mr. Rohit Verma, learned
Standing Counsel also placed some
decisions of the Hon. Supreme Court,
which are considered as under:-

(1) State of U.P. and another vs.Nidhi
Khanna and another (2007) 5 Supreme
Court Cases 572. In this case the vacancies
of Lecturers in different Colleges were
advertised. The respondent no. 1- Writ
Petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer
in Geography in August, 2000. A select list
was prepared on 19.7.2001. Respondent
no.1 was declared selected but her name
was placed at serial no. 1 in the wait list of
General category candidates. However, she
was issued an appointment order but
according to the appellants she did not
join.
Hence
another
candidate
was
appointed in her place. On 5.3.2003,
another merit list was prepared pursuant to
different advertisement. Respondent no. 1
claimed her right of appointment against
the said vacancies. However, her request
was rejected by the appellant on the
ground that a new list was prepared under
different advertisement. The select list in
which respondent was placed was valid
only till new list was prepared. Thus, it had
lapsed on the event of preparation of a new
list. Therefore, she could not be appointed
after the new list was prepared. The High
1552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
Court had issued directions to the
authorities to give her appointment. The
matter reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon
its earlier decision of Kamlesh kumar
Sharma
Vs.
Yogesh
Kumar
Gupta
reported in ( 1998) 3 SCC 45 held that the
appellant were right in their submissions
that the respondent could be appointed in
pursuance of Advertisement No. 32 since
she was selected and empanelled pursuant
to Advertisement No. 29.

22. In the case of Jai Singh Dalai
and others Vs State of Haryana and
another
reported
in
1993
Supp.(2)
Supreme
Court
Cases
600
Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that merely because
the
State
Government
had
sent
a
requisition to the Haryana Public Service
Commission to select candidates for
appointment did not create any vested right
in the candidates called for interview,
regardless of the fact that the selection
process had reached an advanced stage. It
does not matter whether the selection
process is arrested by cancelling the earlier
notification by another notification or by
mere communication addressed to the
HPSC. Even if the Commission were to
complete the process and select candidates,
such selection by itself would not confer a
right to appointment and the Government
may refuse to make an appointment for
valid reason. At best Government may be
required to justify its action on the
touchstone
of
Article
14
of
the
Constitution.

23. In the case of Madan Lal and
others Vs. State of J & K. and others
(1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 486 the
petitioners challenged the process of
selection of Munsifs. Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that validity of viva voce cannot
be judged simply on the basis of the result
thereof unless there is anything to show
that the entire selection process was
vitiated on account of mala fides or bias or
that the Interview Committee Members
had acted with an ulterior motive from the
very beginning and the whole selection
process was a camouflage .

24. In the case of Shankarsan Dash
Vs. Union of India (1991) 3 Supreme
Court Cases 47 a Constitution Bench of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court examined the
value of the select list deeply and
elaborately as the Division Bench referred
the matter before the Constitution Bench
for examination of the question whether a
candidate whose name appears in the merit
list
on
the
basis
of
competitive
examination acquires indefeasible right to
appointment as a Government servant if a
vacancy exists on the announcement of
appellant's name in the select list in IPS
and he was offered appointment to the
Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Police
Service. Subsequently 14 vacancies arose
in IPS in which against the vacancy which
was to be filled up by the candidates who
had been earlier appointed, the appellant
claimed his appointment but the request
was turned down. Then the appellant
moved Delhi High Court by a writ
application which was dismissed in limine.
Then he reached the Supreme Court.
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that process
of final selection had to be closed at some
stage as was actually done. A decision in
this regard was accordingly taken and the
process for further allotment to any
vacancy arising later was closed. It was
expressly ruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court
that existence of a vacancy does not give
legal right to a selected candidate.
Similarly the claim of some of the
candidates selected for appointment was
3 All] Maya V. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
1553
turned down holding that it was open to the
Government to decide as to how many
appointments would be made. The plea of
arbitrariness was rejected in view of the
facts of the case and it was held that the
candidates did not acquire any right merely
by applying for selection or even after
selection.

25. The selection records provided by
the
Government
discloses
that
the
Selection Committee headed by Sri S.S.
Singh Yadav prepared a select list of the
candidates for appointment against the post
of Data Processor and Technical Assistant
and provided it to the Director Ground
Water Department State Government for
further action. Therefore, the contention of
learned
Standing
Counsel
that
the
recommendation was directly sent to the
Government instead of sending it to the
Director of the Department is unfounded.

26. So far as allegation of irregularity
allegedly omitted in the selection process
is concerned, I do not find any such
irregularity reported in the selection.
Therefore, the said ground also appears
baseless. However,the fact remains that
said
recommendation
was
not
implemented and a different selection
committee was constituted which also
issued
an
advertisement
inviting
applications in which the candidates, who
had submitted the applications pursuant to
the advertisement issued earlier as well as
appeared in the interview had also been
permitted to apply. They applied also,
more so appeared in the Interview Board
but could not succeed. Therefore, now at
this stage they are called as unsuccessful
candidates.

27. Therefore, at this stage there are
two basic questions for consideration.
Firstly, whether unsuccessful candidates
can challenge the constitution of the
selection committee as well as the process
of selection adopted by. Secondly, whether
the candidates being in the select list have
any right to claim their appointments on
the basis of their being placed in the select
list.

28. In the matter following facts are
undisputed;

Through
various
advertisements
applications were invited for appointment
of different posts. The petitioners applied
against the different posts. The selection
committee under the Chairmanship of Sri
S.S. Singh Yadav prepared the select list
and sent it to the State Government for
issuing appointment orders. At some point
of time the State Government had also
shown its willingness to expedite the
selection procedure and issue appointment
orders but it could not be finalized and a
fresh
advertisement
was
issued
by
permitting the candidates including the
petitioners who had already applied
pursuant to the earlier advertisements, to
apply in the same. The petitioners also
applied . They appeared before the
Interview Board but in this time the
Selection Committee constituted under the
different Chairmanships did not select
them.
Thus,
they
are
definitely
unsuccessful candidates of the same very
selection which is under challenge.

29. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
Dhananjay Malik's case (supra) has held
that
unsuccessful
candidates
cannot
challenge the selection on the ground that
the Selection Committee was not properly
constituted or the process of selection was
unfair.
1554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

30. The scope of rights of the
candidates, who are empanelled in the select
list but have not been given appointment
has been discussed by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in the case of
Shankarsan Dash(supra) has held that the
candidates empanelled in the merit list do
not
acquire
indefeasible
right
of
appointment. Only the exception has been
carved out on the event of violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In
the instant case the whole selection was
cancelled and none of the candidates
empanalled in the select list prepared by the
Committee under the Chairmanship of Sri
S.S.
Singh
Yadav
has
been
given
appointment. Though the petitioner has
adverted
the
mala
fideness
of
the
respondents but no substantive material has
been brought on record to establish it. Only
the decision for cancellation of selection
and initiate fresh proceedings cannot be said
to be mala fide.

31. In the light of the decisions
discussed, herein above, I am of the
considered opinion that even the petitioners
being empanalled in the select list have no
right to claim appointment save violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In
the
instant
case
no
element
of
discrimination exists.

32. Therefore, I am of the view that no
interference is warranted in the selection,
which has been given effect to, by issuing
orders of appointment in favour of the
private respondents.

33. The writ petitions stand dismissed.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3853 of 2005

Ramdhari

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner (J) & Others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Namwar Singh
Sri Sanjiv Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Anuj Kumar
Sri M.N.Singh
Sri Manish

U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reform
Act,
1950-Section
123
(2)-
settlement of Land-in favor of R-3simply based upon report of Lekhpal-as
R-3 being pot man making earthen potsthrough Chak-had built Mandahi using
for
residential
purpose-should
be
declared as Abadi-while plot in question
recorded with petitioner as BhumidharS.D.O. without opportunity of hearing to
petitioner-by
one
word-written
"Sweekrit"-held-such
benefit
under
section 123 (2)-available to those person
referred to Section 122-C-who had built
a house on 03.06.1995-'Mandahi' being
not covered with definition of house-one
word order (Sweekrit) by S.D.O.-not
sustainable.

Held: Para-14

Taking into consideration of the said
judgment, it may be noticed that in the
present case, no opportunity of hearing
was provided to the petitioner nor there
is any report of any of the authorities
that the respondent no. 3 has built her