# Neeraj Chaurasia and another v. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and another

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1149
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-09-21
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran, Virendra Vikram Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neeraj-chaurasia-and-another-v-uttar-pradesh-power-corporation-ltd-and-another-42356
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Article
226cancellation of Board's Resolution-by
which selection list of accounts officer
canceled-petitioner duly selected on post
of
Accounts
Officer-not
given
appointment-no
reason
given
for
cancellation-either by Board resolution
or in counter affidavit-certainly selected
candidates has no right to appointmentat the same time Board can not act
arbitrary manner-cancellation without
reason-held-illegal
direction
to
issue
appointment within 3 month given.

Held: Para 8

Thus
from
the
affidavits
of
the
respondents as also from the perusal of
the resolutions of the board it is quite
evident that the selection in question has
been turned down by the board without
there being any ground in existence for
the same. There is no mention at all that
the selected candidates including the
petitioners had any fault or fraud on
their part or that the petitioners or any
of the selected candidate did not have
the
requisite
qualification
for
their
appointment to the post of Accounts
Officer in the Board of the respondents.
Thus
there
was
no
illegality
or
irregularity in the selection process nor
was there any wrong act on the part of
the petitioners. Under the prevailing
circumstances it is evident that the
respondent Board has cancelled the
select list without any reason or rhyme
in an arbitrary manner.
Case law discussed:
(1993) SCC 573; (1991) 3 SCC 47; (2003) 7
SCC 285; (1999) 6 SCC 49

## Text

3 All] Neeraj Chaurasia and another V. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and another 1149
respondents rather it is perfectly in
accordance with law.

18. On repeated query, learned
counsel for the petitioner failed to point out
any irreparable loss caused to him by not
granting interim injunction in his favour
and
which
may
warrant
immediate
interference by this Court.

19. In view of the above, I do not
find any good reason to interfere with the
matter.

20. The writ petition lacks merit and
is, therefore, dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA VIKRAM SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 13312 of 2011

Neeraj Chaurasia and another

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd.
and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Saurabh Basu
Sri U.N. Sharma
Sri Vishal Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava
Sri Dharemdra Vaish

Constitution
of
India-Article
226cancellation of Board's Resolution-by
which selection list of accounts officer
canceled-petitioner duly selected on post
of
Accounts
Officer-not
given
appointment-no
reason
given
for
cancellation-either by Board resolution
or in counter affidavit-certainly selected
candidates has no right to appointmentat the same time Board can not act
arbitrary manner-cancellation without
reason-held-illegal
direction
to
issue
appointment within 3 month given.

Held: Para 8

Thus
from
the
affidavits
of
the
respondents as also from the perusal of
the resolutions of the board it is quite
evident that the selection in question has
been turned down by the board without
there being any ground in existence for
the same. There is no mention at all that
the selected candidates including the
petitioners had any fault or fraud on
their part or that the petitioners or any
of the selected candidate did not have
the
requisite
qualification
for
their
appointment to the post of Accounts
Officer in the Board of the respondents.
Thus
there
was
no
illegality
or
irregularity in the selection process nor
was there any wrong act on the part of
the petitioners. Under the prevailing
circumstances it is evident that the
respondent Board has cancelled the
select list without any reason or rhyme
in an arbitrary manner.
Case law discussed:
(1993) SCC 573; (1991) 3 SCC 47; (2003) 7
SCC 285; (1999) 6 SCC 49

(Delivered by Hon'ble Virendra Vikram
Singh, J.)

1. The petitioners, by filing the
present petition, have prayed for issue of
mandamus
for
cancellation
of
the
resolution and approval thereof, whereby
the select list including the name of the
petitioners for the appointment of the
Accounts Officer in the respondent's
department was cancelled. The petitioners
applied for the appointment on the post of
Accounts Officer, in response to the
advertisement
Annexure1
dated
1150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
12.11.2004, made by the respondents, for
31 posts of Accounts Officer. The
petitioners applied for their appointment
and after the test and the interview held
by the respondents, they were declared
successful and their name found place in
the select list, Annexure 2 published on
19.10.2005. The petitioners thereafter
waited for the appointment letter for a
reasonable time and when they did not
receive any response, they filed a writ
petition no. 65306 of 2006 before this
Court. This writ petition was finally
disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to decide the representation
within a period of three months in the
matter of issuance of appointment letter.
Despite the direction of this Court the
representation of the petitioners was not
decided within the stipulated period. The
petitioners
then
filed
the
contempt
petition no. 3543 of 2007, which was
decided in terms of the compliance
affidavit on behalf of the respondents that,
"the appointment to the post of accounts
officer
is
under
administrative
consideration and the candidates will be
intimated accordingly in due course." The
petitioners thereafter approached the
respondents
by
way
of
seeking
information
under
the
right
of
information. After a strenuous exercise
they were informed that by way of the
resolution of the respondent board, the
entire examination and the select list has
been cancelled. By way of the present
writ petition the petitioners have prayed
for quashing the resolution of the
respondent
board
canceling
the
examination and for the issuance of
appointment letters to the petitioners.

2. On behalf of the respondents vide
the counter affidavit, dated 27.9.2011, it
was put forth that the respondent Board
has got unfettered powers to vary the
number of appointments and under the
exercise of such powers they have
cancelled the examination and the select
list. No ground for the cancellation of the
examination or the select list was at all
required to be mentioned. This Court
having observed such a situation, on
14.2.2012 passed following order,

"Though the petitioners do not have
indefeasible right for appointment in
pursuance of the select list, the respondent
corporation must disclose valid reasons
for which selection was cancelled."

3. With this observation the Court
granted time to the respondents to file
counter affidavit giving the reasons for
the
cancellation
of
selection
while
annexing the resolution of the Board. In
compliance to the orders of the Court the
respondents have filed the supplementary
counter affidavit annexing the resolution
of the board dated 3rd November 2008,
along with its approval dated 29.12.2008.
It has also been mentioned that the
information about the cancellation of the
examination was widely published in the
newspapers and the same was also
available
on
the
website
of
the
respondents. However no ground for the
cancellation of the selection and the select
list was mentioned in this supplementary
counter affidavit. On behalf of the
petitioners
the
affidavits
of
the
respondents have been controverted.

4. Heard learned counsels of the
parties and perused the record.

5. The contention of the respondent
corporation is that merely because the
name of a candidate appears in the select
list, he would not become entitled to
3 All] Neeraj Chaurasia and another V. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and another 1151
appointment gathers force,but whether
such powers are unfettered has been
considered by the Apex Court in the case
of Mrs Asha Kaul and another Vs State
of J&K (1993) SCC 573 while holding as
follows:

"It is true that mere inclusion in the
select list does not confer upon the
candidate
included
therein
an
indefeasible right to appointment but that
is only one aspect of the matter. The other
aspect is the obligation of the Government
to act fairly. The whole exercise can not
be reduced to a farce. Having sent a
requisition/request to the commission to
select a particular number of candidates
for a particular category, in pursuance of
which
the
commission
issues
a
notification, holds a written test, conducts
interviews, prepares a select list and
communicates to the Government?the
Government can not quietly and without
good and valid reasons nullify the whole
exercise and tell the candidates when they
complain that they have no legal right to
appointment. We do not think that any
Government can adopt such a stand
without any justification today".

6. This aspect has also been dealt
with by the Constitutional Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan
Dash Vs Union of India,(1991)3 SCC 47.
The following observation of the Apex
Court need be quoted:

"It is not correct to say that if a
number of vacancies are notified for
appointment and adequate number of
candidates are found fit, the successful
candidate acquire an indefeasible right to
be appointed which cannot be legitimately
denied. Ordinarily the notification merely
amounts to an invitation to qualified
candidates to apply for recruitment and
on their selection they do not acquire any
right to the post. Unless the relevant
recruitment rules so indicate, the State is
under no legal duty to fill up all or any of
the vacancies. However, it does not mean
that the State has the licence of acting in
an arbitrary manner. The decision not to
fill the vacancies has to be taken bonafide
for appropriate reasons. And if the
vacancies or any of them are filled up, the
State is bound to respect the comparative
merit of the candidates, as reflected at the
recruitment test,and no discrimination
can be permitted".

7. Thus the argument on behalf of
the respondents that they have unfettered
right to cancel the selection prima facie
appears to be unfounded. Such right could
only have been exercised if there existed
sufficient grounds for the same and the
respondents before this Court were bound
to disclose such grounds.

8. It is evident from the counter
affidavit of the respondents that no reason
was put forward on their behalf for the
cancellation of the selection. This is also
evident from the orders of this Court
dated 14.2.2012, referred to above. After
the orders of the Court the supplementary
counter affidavit was filed along with the
copy of the resolutions of the Board. By
way
of
the
supplementary
counter
affidavit as well, no reason for the
cancellation of the selection could be put
forward. The learned counsel for the
respondents also failed to mention any
good reason for the cancellation of the
selection. The resolution of the board
numbered as Seventy five(24)/08 dated
3rd Nov. 2008 shows in the left column
the proposal for the cancellation of the
selection in question along with the start
1152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
of new selection and on the right side
column the recommendation of the board
has been mentioned. In either of the two
columns no ground for the cancellation of
the selection has been given. The other
letter dated 29.12.2008 simply bears the
approval of the recommendation that too
without showing any ground at all. Thus
from the affidavits of the respondents as
also from the perusal of the resolutions of
the board it is quite evident that the
selection in question has been turned
down by the board without there being
any ground in existence for the same.
There is no mention at all that the selected
candidates including the petitioners had
any fault or fraud on their part or that the
petitioners or any of the selected
candidate did not have the requisite
qualification for their appointment to the
post of Accounts Officer in the Board of
the respondents. Thus there was no
illegality or irregularity in the selection
process nor was there any wrong act on
the part of the petitioners. Under the
prevailing circumstances it is evident that
the respondent Board has cancelled the
select list without any reason or rhyme in
an arbitrary manner. The only question
now remains to be decided is, whether the
respondents have unfettered right to
cancel
the
selection,
without
even
disclosing the grounds therefor?

9. In the case of Union of India Vs
Rajesh P.U.Puthuvalnikathu (2003)7
SCC 285, the Apex Court held that
where it was possible to weed out the
beneficiaries of the irregularities or the
illegalities from amongst the selected
candidates whose selection was not
vitiated in any manner. The Supreme
Court further held that in such a case,"
the
competent
authority
completely
misdirected itself in taking such an
extreme and unreasonable decision of
canceling the entire selection, wholly
unwarranted and unnecessary even on
the factual situation found too, and
totally in excess of the nature and gravity
of what was at stake, thereby virtually
rendering such decision to be irrational."
With this finding the order was passed
for giving appointments.

10.

Again
in
the
case
of
Purushottam Vs Chairman, M.S.E.B.
and another (1999)6 SCC 49, the Apex
Court while replying the question that
whether a duly selected person for being
appointed and illegally kept out of
employment on account of untenable
decision on the part of the employer,can
be denied the said appointment, held
that,

"The right of the appellant to be
appointed against the post to which he
has been selected cannot be taken away
on the pretext that the said panel in the
meantime expired and the post has
already been filled up by some body
else."

11. This proposition applies to the
present case wherein the respondents
have utterly failed to mention any ground
for the cancellation of the selection.

12. With the discussion made above
we hold that the recommendation of the
respondent Board for the cancellation of
selection dated 3rd November 2008 and
its approval dated 29.12.2008 were
totally unwarranted without there being
any reason at all for the cancellation of
the selection in question. The Court
considers it just and necessary to issue
mandamus to cancel these resolutions as
3 All] Harihar Nath Shukla V. M.D., Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. & others
1153
also the decision of the Board for the
cancellation of the selection.

13. The writ petition is hereby
allowed.
The
resolution
of
the
respondent Board dated 3rd November
2008 and its approval dated 29.12.2008,
are hereby quashed. The respondents are
hereby issued a writ of mandamus to
grant appointment to the petitioners for
the post of Accounts Officer within a
period of three months. It is being made
clear that the appointments so made shall
be given effect prospectively.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.09.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14120 of 1988

Harihar Nath Shukla

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Rajya
Sahkari Bhumi vikas Bank Ltd. and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Chandra
Sri R.S.Srivastava
Sri Vinod Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri C.B.Gupta
Sri J.A.Tiwari
Sri R.S.Shukla
SC

U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees
Service
Regulations,
1975-Regulation
85-Dismissal order-without holding oral
enquiry-unless
request
made
by
employee oral enquiry not necessaryheld-misconceived
when
major
punishment inflicted-oral enquiry mustorder quashed with direction to hold
enquiry within 6 month-if not concludedpetitioner entitled for all consequential
benefits.

Held: Para 14

The occasion to afford opportunity to the
delinquent
employee
contemplated
under
the
aforesaid
Regulation
at
different stages during the oral enquiry,
would arise only when an oral enquiry is
held. The Enquiry Officer is obliged to
give an opportunity to the delinquent
employee to participate in oral enquiry
and examine the witnesses of the
department. Even mere absence of reply
of charge sheet shall not result in
deeming in the charges proved. In the
present case the petitioner has clearly
denied charges. Therefore, non-holding
of oral enquiry, in view of this Court,
shall vitiate the entire proceedings.
Case law discussed:
1997 (1) LLJ 831; 2000 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 541;
2001 (2) UPLBEC 1475; Chandra Pal Singh Vs.
Managing
Director,
U.P.
Co-operative
Federation & Ors. (Special Appeal No.533 of
2004) decided on 12.10.2006; Salahuddin
Ansari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ Petition
No.19481 of 2003 decided on 18.2.2008; Writ
Petition No.13553 of 2004 (Nirmal Singh Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.) decided on 3.4.2007;
2007 (3) ESC 1533; writ petition No. 44002 of
2005, Shiv Shanker Saxena v. State of U.P.
and Ors. decided on 3.3.2006

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vinod Sinha and Sri
Mahesh Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri C.B.Gupta, learned
counsel for the respondent-Bank.

2. A major penalty of removal from
service has been imposed upon the
petitioner Harihar Nath Shukla, son of
Mahabir Shukla working as Field Officer in
U.P. Rajya Sahkari Bvhumi Vikas Bank
Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank")
vide order dated 26.4.1988, passed by