# Robins Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 1184
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-14
- **Case number:** WRIT A No. 12102 of 2020
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/robins-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47366
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Appointment - Uttar
Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection
Commission Act, 2014 - Sections 15, 17 &
18(2); Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment
To Group 'C' Posts (Mode And Procedure)
Rules, 2015 - Rule 5, 7 & 8; Guidelines
adopted by the Commission in exercise of
powers under Section 15 - Guideline 16,
22, 23, 24.

The withheld result is not a separate
exercise undertaken by the Commission
9 All Robins Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1185
but a part of the same selection process.
Merely for the reason that verification was
pending would not mean that the withheld
candidates were not in the select list
declared by the Commission on 18 July

## Text

1184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cannot be any deductions, The tribunal
could have simply remanded the matter as
the Loco-pilot who were before it were
already relegated to the concerned authority
by its order. The respondents shall not refix the pay scale of the petitioners till
decide
the
representations
and
also
considered the matter on merits.

5. May that as it may be as a model
Government, the respondent No.1, Union
of India through the General Manager,
North Central Railway will direct the
respondent No.2, Divisional Railway
Manager, North Central Railway, JhansiU.P. will in term directed respondent
No.3,
Divisional
Railway
Manager
(Personnel),
North
Central
Railway
Manager,
Jhansi
to
look
into
the
grievance of the petitioners herein and till
they decide the representation, if it is
shown that there was not fraud committed
cannot be deducted. May that as it may
be, we substitute the tribunals order by
this order.

6. This petition and O.A. will be
considered to be reply of the petitioners
and other affected parties may also file
their representations within four weeks
from
today.
The
petitioners
may
supplement the same also with additional
material if they so chose.

7. The judgment in WRIT - A No. -
6083
of
2021,
Ramesh
Chandra
Raikwar And 14 Others v. Central
Administrative Tribunal And 3 Others
is not countenanced at present by us
practical view and, therefore, we do not
place reliance on the same. There are
factual data also which are different from
the judgment of Ramesh Chandra (Supra)
for which we are not delving at the
present.

8. We hope that the authorities
concerned will go through the judicial
pronouncements of the Apex Court
regarding recovery from salary.

9. With these observations, this
petition is disposed of.

10. We are thankful to counsels for
ably assisting us and in case of difficulty,
the parties to seek revival of this petition
----------
(2021)09ILR A1184
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

WRIT A No. 12102 of 2020
With
WRIT A No. 6940 of 2021

Robins Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sriprakash Rai, Sri Mujib Ahmad
Siddiqui, Sri Rishi Kant Rai, Sri K.S.
Kushwaha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Siddharth Singhal

A. Service Law - Appointment - Uttar
Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection
Commission Act, 2014 - Sections 15, 17 &
18(2); Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment
To Group 'C' Posts (Mode And Procedure)
Rules, 2015 - Rule 5, 7 & 8; Guidelines
adopted by the Commission in exercise of
powers under Section 15 - Guideline 16,
22, 23, 24.

The withheld result is not a separate
exercise undertaken by the Commission
9 All Robins Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1185
but a part of the same selection process.
Merely for the reason that verification was
pending would not mean that the withheld
candidates were not in the select list
declared by the Commission on 18 July
2018. There is no such prohibition restraining
the Commission from issuing select list in
respect of the post in first instance alone and
thereafter, the Commission, is denuded of its
power to process the withheld result of
otherwise
selected
candidates
pending
verification. (Para 17)

In the facts of the instant case, 3133 post of
Village Development Officer (Group 'C') was
sent by the Government to the Commission for
initiating
the
process
of
selection.
The
Commission
after
following
the
selection
procedure recommended 2947 candidates, the
result of 116 candidates was withheld pending
verification of the documents. Thereafter, 98
were sent to the Government, finally, the list of
remaining
18
candidates
were
duly
recommended and notified by the Commission
on 26 June 2020. Prior to that it is informed that
70 candidates under the ex-serviceman quota
were
notified.
The
total
recommended
candidates, thus, were equivalent to the notified
post 3133 (2947+116+70). (Para 15)

The State Government has declined to accept
the select list of the candidates notified by the
Commission on 26 June 2020, for the reason
that the Commission lacks power and authority
to issue any supplementary select list. According
to the State Government, selection process
came to an end after the Commission had
notified the select list of 2947 candidates. (Para
15)

B. The State cannot discriminate against
the petitioners by taking a plea that the
Commission has no power to declare a
supplementary
select
list.
The
final
supplementary list of 18 candidates is a part of
the list of 116 withheld candidates to have been
cleared by the Commission subsequently. The
18 candidates are part of the same select list
and not beyond the notified vacancy. Their
results were notified after verification as was the
case of other withheld candidates and were
otherwise found fit on merit. (Para 16, 20)

The Commission has a right to withhold the
result pending verification of the original
certificate relating to qualification. It is not the
case of State Government that candidates
recommended by the Commission exceed the
total number of vacancies notified i.e. 3133. It is
also not a case of exhaustion of the select list of
recommended candidates but preparation and
declaration of the complete select list by the
Commission of the notified vacancy pursuant to
the same advertisement. (Para 19)

C.
Words
&
Phrases
-
'withheld',
'supplementary' - As per Webster Dictionary
the expression, 'withheld', would mean, 'refuse
to give (something that is due or desired by
another)'; 'to hold back; to keep back,' and,
'supplementary' would mean 'the result has not
been revealed or published', 'Once certain
criteria
are
fulfilled
or
certain
investigation/enquiry are completed.' (Para 18)

Writ petitions allowed. (E-4)

Precedent distinguished:

1. Secretary Kerala Public Service Commission
Vs Sheeja P.R. & anr., (2013) 2 SCC 56 (Para 8)

2. Ajay Prakash Mishra & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., W-A-26813/2018 decided on 21.06.2021
(Para 8)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri K.S. Kushwaha, along
with Sri Mujib Ahmad, learned counsels
appearing for the petitioner, Shri Siddharth
Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the
second respondent and learned standing
counsel appearing for the State-respondent.

2. For the sake of convenience, the
facts set out in Writ-A No. 12102 of 2020
is being referred to for deciding both the
petitions.

3. The facts, inter se, parties are not in
dispute. The second respondent, Uttar
1186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection
Board, Lucknow1, issued an advertisement
No. 03/2016, inviting application from
eligible candidates for the post of Village
Development Officer, 3133 posts were
advertised. As per advertisement, eligible
candidates were to appear for written
examination,
physical
efficiency
test,
followed by interview. The candidates in
ratio of 3:1 were to be called for interview
i.e. three candidates per post. Petitioner
qualified the written examination, physical
efficiency test and appeared for interview.
The Selection Board declared the final
result for the post on 18 July 2018. The
select list comprised of 2947 candidates, as
against the notified 3133 vacancies. The
Commission withheld the result of 116
candidates for several reasons, including,
verification
of
their
educational
qualification and other documents. It
appears that some of the candidates
approached this Court in two petitions
bearing Writ-A No. 18049 of 2019 (Vivek
Kumar Srivastava and 4 others vs. State of
U.P. and another) and Writ-A No. 18798 of
2019 (Avesh Kumar and 5 others vs. State
of U.P. and another), which came to be
disposed of on 26 November 2019,
directing the Commission to consider the
representation to prepare a revised list on
account of 29 posts of the candidate
securing marks next to the final cut off
marks. It appears that the Commission
declared a supplementary select list for 18
post on 26 June 2020. The petitioners
found their names in the supplementary
select list of the 18 candidates. It appears
that Commission did not send the list of
selected candidates to the concerned
department for issuing appointment letters.

4. Aggrieved, by the conduct of the
second
respondent,
Commission,
petitioners have filed the instant writ
petition seeking a direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the second respondent,
Commission to send the select list of the
supplementary result, published on 26 June
2020, for the post of Village Development
Officer
(General
Selection)
Examination/2016, to the first respondent,
Principal Secretary, Rural Development
U.P., at Lucknow. It is further prayed that
the first respondent be directed to issue
appointment letter to the petitioners,
pursuant to the recommendation of the
Commission.

5. The Commission is supporting the
case of the petitioners. Learned counsel for
the second respondent, submits that against
3133 vacancies, select list in the first
instance was declared for 2947 candidates,
results of 116 candidates were withheld due
to the pending verification pertaining to
their
documents
and
qualification.
Thereafter,
Commission
cleared
98
candidates. In respect of 18 candidates,
after enquiry and verification, their names
was cleared by the Commission in its
meeting dated 23 June 2020, and duly
notified on the official website of the
Commission. In other words, the select list
of 18 candidates are as per merit and are
eligible for appointment. The second
respondent undertakes to forward their
names to the Government.

6. The first respondent has filed
counter affidavit sworn by the Joint
Secretary,
Rural
Development,
U.P.,
wherein, the facts have not been disputed
but a stand has been taken that after
declaration of the final result by the
Commission on 6 August 2018, the
Commission had no power or authority to
have issued the supplementary select list as
the process of selection came to an end.
There
is
no
provision
for
9 All Robins Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1187
declaration/publication of supplementary
result or waiting list, hence, supplementary
list of 18 candidates, including that of the
petitioners declared by the Commission on
26 June 2020 is legally not acceptable.

7. Para-6 of the counter affidavit is
extracted:

"That, it is further respectfully
submitted that in compliance of order dated
13.07.2021, passed by this Hon'ble Court
the
Addl.
Chief
Secretary,
Rural
Development,
U.P.
Sashan
filed
his
personal affidavit, stating therein that after
publication of final select list of 2943
candidates, dated 06.08.2018 by the U.P.
Subordinate Service Selection Commission
said selection process came to an end and
as such there is no such provision of
declaration/publication of Supplementary
result
or
waiting
list
hence
the
supplementary
list
of
18
candidates,
declared by the U.P. Subordinate Service
Selection Commission on 26.06.2020 is
legally not acceptable. In this regard the
answering deponent is also filing the copy
of Office Memorandum No. 28/5/80-Ka04-1999, Lucknow dated 15 November,
1999 issued by Personnel Department of
State Government, whereby the State
Government has banned on publication of
waiting list and in view thereof the
Supplementary result declared by the
Commission legally not acceptable. For
kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court a photo
copy of Office Memorandum No. 28/5/80Ka-04-1999, Lucknow dated 15 November,
1999 issued by Personnel Department of
State Government is being filed herewith
and marked as Annexure No. C.A.-1 to this
affidavit."

8. In this backdrop, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel submits that the
petitioners
are
not
entitled
to
seek
appointment
on
the
strength
of
the
supplementary select list. There is no
provision for preparation of waiting list. In
other words, it is sought to be urged that the
selection
process
culminated
after
the
declaration of the select list by the
Commission on 6 August 2018. Reliance has
been placed on the decisions rendered in
Secretary,
Kerala
Public
Service
Commission v. Sheeja P.R. and another2
and Ajay Prakash Mishra and others v.
State of U.P. and others3.

9. Submissions fall for consideration.

10. The Commission has been
constituted
under
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Subordinate Services Selection Commission
Act, 20144. Chapter-II of the Act provides
for establishment of the Commission.
Chapter-III provides for power and duties of
the Commission and allocation of business.
Section-15 confers upon the Commission
powers and duties to prepare guidelines on
the matter relating to the method of
recruitment; to conduct examinations, hold
interview and make selection of candidates;
to select and invite experts and to appoint
examiners for the purposes of selection; to
perform such other duties and exercise such
other powers as may be prescribed. Subsection (2) of Section-15 mandates that the
Commission in exercising the powers or
performing the duties referred to in Sub
section-(1), Commission shall be guided by
such rules or regulations as may be made in
this behalf. Section-15 reads thus:

15.(1) The Commission shall have
the powers and duties -

(a) To prepare guidelines on
mattes
relating
to
the
method
of
recruitment;
1188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(b) To conduct examinations,
hold interview and make selection of
candidates;

(c) To select and invite experts
and to appoint examiners for the purposes
specified in clause (b);

(d) To perform such other duties
and exercise such other powers as may be
prescribed.

(2) In exercising the powers or
performing the duties referred to in subsection (1) the Commission shall be guided
by such rules or regulations as may be
made in this behalf.

11.

Chapter
-IV
of
Selection
Commission Act provides for notification
of vacancies and appointment. Section-17
mandates that the appointing authority shall
determine and intimate to the Commission
the number of vacancies to be filled
through the Commission during the course
of the year of recruitment; the vacancies
shall be notified to the Commission in such
manner as may be prescribed. Sub section-
(2) of Section-18 provides that the
Commission
shall
forward
to
the
appointing authority a list of candidates
who are found suitable and the appointing
authority shall make appointments from the
list so forwarded to it in the order
mentioned therein. Section-17 and 18 are
extracted:

17. (1) The appointing authority
shall determine and intimate to the
Commission the number of vacancies to be
filled through the Commission during the
course of the year of recruitment as also the
number of the vacancies to be reserved for
the candidates belonging to the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and other
categories in accordance with the law for
the time being in force in this behalf.

(2)
The
vacancies
shall
be
notified to the Commission in such manner
as may be prescribed.

18. (1) The Commission shall, as
soon as possible after the intimation of
vacancies
under
section
17,
hold
examination or interview or both and
prepare in such manner as may be
prescribed a list of the candidates who are
found suitable.

(2) The list referred to in subsection (1) shall be forwarded to the
appointing authority and the appointing
authority shall make appointments from the
list so forwarded to it in the order
mentioned therein.

12. The Government in exercise of
the powers conferred by the proviso to
Article-309 of the Constitution of India,
framed
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Direct
Recruitment To Group ''C' Posts (Mode
And Procedure) Rules, 2015. Rule-5
provides the mode of direct recruitment to
Group ''C' posts to be made through
Commission.
Rule-7
mandates
the
appointing authority to determine and
intimate
to
the
Commission
in
the
prescribed Form, the number of vacancies
to be filled during the course of the year of
recruitment, as
also the number of
vacancies to be reserved for the various
class of candidates. Rule-8 provides the
procedure for direct recruitment, the
syllabus,
marks
of
written
examination/interview
and
the
rules
relating thereof shall be such as prescribed
by the Commission from time to time with
the approval of the Government. Sub rule-
(2) of Rule-8 provides the procedure for
9 All Robins Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1189
direct recruitment to be made on the basis
of written examination and interview.
Clause-(iv) of sub rule-(2) of Rule-8
mandates that
the Commission shall
prepare a list of candidates in order of their
proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate of
marks obtained by each candidate at the
written examination and interview and
recommend such number of candidates as
they consider fit for appointment. Rule 7
and 8 are extracted:

"7. The appointing authority shall
determine and intimate to the Commission,
in the prescribed Requisition Form, the
number of vacancies to be filled during the
course of the year of recruitment, as also
the number of vacancies to be reserved for
the candidates belonging to the Scheduled
Castes,
Scheduled
Tribes
and
other
categories under rule 6.

8.(1) The procedure for direct
recruitment, the syllabus, marks of written
examination/interview
and
the
rules
relating thereof shall be such as prescribed
by the Commission from time to time with
the approval of the Government.

(2) When, in accordance with the
provisions of sub-rule (1) direct recruitment
is to made on the basis of written
examination and interview, the following
procedure shall be followed:-

(i) Application for permission to
appear in the competitiveexamination shall
be invited by the Commission in the form
published in the advertisement issued by
the Commission.

(ii)
No
candidate
shall
be
admitted to the examination unless he holds
a certificate of admission, issued by the
Commission.

(iii) After the results of the
written examination have been received
and tabulated, the Commission shall,
having regard to the need for securing due
representation of the candidates belonging
to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and others under rule 6, summon for
interview such number of candidates as, on
the result of the written examination, have
come up to the standard fixed by the
Commission in this respect. The marks
awarded to each candidate at the interview
shall be added to the marks obtained by
him in the written examination.

(iv) The Commission shall prepare a
list of candidates in order of their
proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate
of mark obtained by each candidate at
the written examination and interview
and
recommend
such
number
of
candidates as they consider fit for
appointment. If two or more candidates
obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the
name of the candidate obtaining higher
marks in the written examination shall be
placed higher in the list. If two or more
candidates obtain equal marks in the
written examination also, the name of the
candidate senior in age shall be placed
higher in the list. The Commission shall
forward the list to the appointing authority.

13. The Guidelines adopted by the
Commission in exercise of powers under
Section 15 of the Selection Commission
Act, for the purposes of the examination,
written test, proficiency/physical test and
interview that govern the selection process
of the posts. Guideline-16 provides for
selection procedure. The candidates in ratio
of 3:1 are to be invited for interview on
qualifying written examination. Guideline21 provides for preparing the merit list on
the strength of the marks obtained in the
1190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
written examination and proficiency test.
Guideline-22
provides
for
interview.
Guideline-23
mandates
that
after
verification of the document and upon
satisfying
itself,
the
Commission,
thereafter, would declare the select list.
Guideline-24 mandates that the select list
shall be notified by the Commission and
the Secretary of the Commission shall
pursue/monitor
as
to
whether
the
appointment letter to all the candidates
notified in the select list has been issued.
Paragraphs 16 (1), 21, 22, 23 & 24 of the
Guidelines are extracted:

16- p;u izfØ;k ds lEcU/k esa dqN
fof'k"V ekeyksa ds ckjs esa ekxZn'kZd fl)kUr %&

1⁄411⁄2 lkekU; :i ls fyf[kr ijh{kk ds
ifj.kke ds vk/kkj ij lk{kkRdkj esa cqyk;s tkus
okys vH;fFkZ;kasa dh la[;k miyC/k fjDr inksa dh
la[;k dk rhu xquk gksxhA ysfdu ;fn fjDr inksa
dh la[;k vR;f/kd gS] rks vk;ksx esa fopkj foe'kZ
ds mijkUr lk{kkRdkj esa cqyk;s tkus okys
vH;fFkZ;ksa dh la[;k esa ifjorZu fd;k tk ldrk
gSA

21- ,sls ekeyksa esa tc p;u fyf[kr
ijh{kk rFkk lk{kkRdkj nksuksa ds vkk/kkj ij fd;k
tkuk gS%&

izR;sd fnu lkk{kkRdkj ds i'pkr
izR;sd lk{kkrdkj cksMZ ds v/;{k }kjk vadrkfydk
dh lwph 1⁄4ftldh dsoy ,d gh izfr cuk;h
tk;sxh1⁄2 lfpo dks lhYM fyQkQs esa miyC/k
djk;h tk;sxhA xksiu vuqHkkx esa bu lwfp;ksa rFkk
fyf[kr ijh{kk ds ifj.kke ds vk/kkj ij lsok
fu;ekoyh ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj Js"Brk lwph
rS;kj dj ;Fkk lEHko mlh dk;Zfnol dks vk;ksx
dh cSBd vk;ksftr dj vfUre ifj.kke ij
;Fkkfu;e@fofu;e] v/;{k@vk;ksx dk vuqeksnu
izkIr fd;k tk;sxkA

22- lk{kkRdkj ds iwoZ ;fn dksbZ vF;FkhZ
'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk vFkok vuqHko ls lEcfU/kr ewy
izek.k~&i=] ijh{k.k gsrq izLrqr ugha dj ikrs gSa rks
,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa dk lk{kkRdkj vkSicfU/kd :i ls
fy;k tk ldrk gS] ijUrq blls iwoZ lEcfU/kr
lk{kkRdkj cksMZ ds v/;{k dk vuqeksnu izkIr djuk
vko';d gksxkA ,sls vH;fFk;ksa ls ;g fyf[kr :i
esa fy;k tkuk pkfg, fd og visf{kr ewy
izek.k&i= lk{kkRdkj dh frfFk ls fu/kkZfjr vof/k
1⁄4;FkklEHko 15 fnu1⁄2 esa izLrqr dj nsaxs vU;Fkk
mudk vH;FkZu Lor% lekIr le>k tk;sxkA

23- izR;sd ekeys esa ijh{kk ifj.kke
?kksf"kr djus gsrq vk;ksx dh laLrqfr izkIr djus ls
iwoZ lQy vH;fFkZ;ksa ds vH;FkZu ds lEcU/k esa
dk;kZy; }kjk iqu% lw{erk ls tkap dh tk;sxhA

24- p;u lEcU/kh laLrqfr;ka lacaf/kr
foHkkx@foHkkxksa dks izsf"kr djus ds i'pkr
dk;kZy;@lfpo dk ;g drZO; gksxk fd os
izdj.k dk vuqJo.k rc rd djrs jgsa tc rd
laLrqr fd;s x;s vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk lacaf/kr in ij
dk;ZHkkj xzg.k u dj fy;k tk;sA bl laca/k esa
f}okf"kZd ewY;kadu fjiksVZ Hkh izkIr dh tk;sxhA 5

14. I have perused and carefully gone
through the provisions of the Act, Rules
framed thereunder, and the Guidelines,
with the assistance of the learned counsel
for the parties.

15. The Rules and Guidelines
nowhere provide for preparation of wait
list. The Commission under the Rules and
Guidelines is mandated to recommend a
select list for the posts notified by the
Government to the Commission. In other
words, in the facts of the instant case, 3133
post of Village Development Officer
(Group ''C') was sent by the Government to
the Commission for initiating the process
of
selection.
The
Commission
after
following
the
selection
procedure
recommended 2947 candidates, the result
of 116 candidates was withhold pending
verification of the documents. Thereafter,
98 were sent to the Government, finally,
9 All Robins Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1191
the list of remaining 18 candidates were
duly recommended and notified by the
Commission on 26 June 2020. Prior to that
it is informed that 70 candidates under the
ex-serviceman quota were notified. The
total recommended candidates, thus, were
equivalent to the notified post 3133
(2947+116+70). The State Government has
declined to accept the select list of the
candidates notified by the Commission on
26 June 2020, for the reason that the
Commission lacks power and authority to
issue
any
supplementary
select
list.
According to the State Government,
selection process came to an end after the
Commission had notified the select list of
2947 candidates. Reliance has also been
placed on the notification dated 15
November
1999
(Annexure
CA-1),
wherein, it has been provided that there is
no provision for preparation of waiting list.
The notification pertains to the Public
Service Commission, U.P. On specific
query, learned counsel appearing for the
State
fairly
submits
that
the
said
notification would not apply to the
Commission, which is governed under a
separate statute.

16. In any case, it is not in dispute
between the parties that there is no
provision under the Rules/Guidelines for
preparation of waiting list. In other words,
the Commission is required to prepare a
select list of candidates against the
vacancies notified by the State Government
to the Commission. In the instant case,
3133 vacancies were notified, though the
select
list
was
declared/notified
intermittently on three occasions pending
verification of the credentials of the
withheld candidates. It is not the case of the
State that they have declined appointment
to all such candidates notified by the
Commission after declaration of the select
list of 2947 candidates. To put it in other
words that the subsequent supplementary
select list of withheld candidates was
honoured. The final supplementary list of
18 candidates is a part of the withheld
candidates to have been cleared by the
Commission
subsequently.
The
18
candidates are part of the same select list
and not beyond the notified vacancy. Their
result were notified after verification as
was the case of other withheld candidates.
The State cannot discriminate against the
petitioners by taking a plea that the
Commission has no power to declare a
supplementary select list.

17. Learned counsel appearing for the
State is unable to show either from the
Rules or Guidelines that there is any such
prohibition restraining the Commission
from issuing select list in respect of the
post in first instance alone. Thereafter, the
Commission, is denuded of its power to
process the withheld result of otherwise
selected candidates pending verification.
The withheld result is not a separate
exercise undertaken by the Commission but
a part of the same selection process. Merely
for the reason that verification was pending
would
not
mean
that
the
withheld
candidates were not in the select list
declared by the Commission on 18 July
2018.

18. The expression, ''withheld',
would mean, ''refuse to give (something
that is due or desired by another)'; ''to hold
back; to keep back,' and, ''supplementary'
-- ''the result has not been revealed or
published.' ''Once certain criteria are
fulfilled or certain investigation/enquiry are
completed.'6

19. The objection of the State lacks
merit for the reasons that it is not the case of
1192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the State Government that the candidates
recommended for the post are otherwise not
qualified or lack merit. It is admitted that the
Commission had withheld result of 116
candidates as their credentials pertaining to
their qualification and other documents were
under verification. As and when the
verification
was
concluded
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
Commission
the
supplementary
result
was
declared.
Guideline 23 clearly mandates that the office
shall minutely re-examine the candidature of
each successful candidates before obtaining
the approval of the Commission. Guideline
22 confers right upon the Commission to
take
interview
of
such
candidates
''provisionally' if a candidate is unable to
produce original certificates relating to
qualification. To put it differently the
Commission has a right to withhold the
result pending verification of the original
certificate relating to qualification. It is also
not the case of the State Government that the
candidates
recommended
by
the
Commission exceed the total number of
vacancies notified i.e. 3133. It is also not a
case of exhaustion of the select list of
recommended candidates but preparation
and declaration of the complete select list by
the Commission of the notified vacancy
pursuant to the same advertisement. The
authorities relied upon by the State counsel
would not apply to the facts of the instant
case.
In
Sheeja
P.R.
(supra),
the
respondent/petitioner, therein, was seeking
appointment as his name featured in the
supplementary list of reserved candidates
prepared
by
the
Commission
after
exhaustion of the main select list. The
Supreme Court held that when the main
(select)
list
exhausted
or
expired,
supplementary list cannot be allowed to
operate. In the case of Ajay Prakash
Mishra (supra), the petitioners, therein,
were seeking appointment on vacant posts
that could not be filled as some of the
aspirant candidates were found unfit in
proficiency physical test or on verification
of their documents. The court was of the
view that since in the rules there was no
provision of wait list, the petitioners cannot
claim as a matter of right on the vacant post.

20. In the case at hand, the
proposition of law noted in the cited
decisions by the State counsel would not
apply. It is not the case of the petitioners
and/or the Commission that a wait list was
prepared. It is further not the case of the
Commission and/or the State that the
petitioners are seeking appointment upon
exhaustion of the select list of 3133 posts.
As per the Commission, 18 candidates are
the remaining candidates of the 116
withheld result. Their results were declared
after verification of their documents and
were otherwise found fit on merit.

21. Learned counsel for the second
respondent informs that the names of the
petitioners have been duly forwarded by
the Commission on 18 December 2020, it
is urged that it is for the concerned
department of the State Government to
issue appointment letter to the petitioners.

22. Having due regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, writ petitions are
allowed directing the first respondent,
Principal Secretary, Rural Development
U.P., at Lucknow, to issue appointment
letter to the petitioners pursuant to the
recommendation dated 26 June 2020 of the
Commission for the post of Village
Development Officer. It is expected that the
appointment letters shall be duly issued
within four weeks from the date of filing of
this order.

23. No costs.
9 All Dr. Bharat Sah Vs. S.G.P.G.I. of Medical Sciences, Lko & Ors.
1193
----------
(2021)09ILR A1193
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No. 17450 of of 2020

Dr. Bharat Sah ...Petitioner
Versus
S.G.P.G.I. of Medical Sciences, Lko & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sunil Sharma, Kusharga Sah

Counsel for the Respondents:
A N Trivedi

A. Service Law - Grant and extension of
lien - Voluntary retirement - SGPGIMS Act,
1983- Section 11; Schedule I of First
Regulations 2011 read with the Order
dated
02.07.2019;
General
Rules
of
SGPGI: Regulation 95; Rule 7 of 1999
Rules; Constitution of India: Article 14,
16, 21 - The petitioner was granted extension
of service for three years w.e.f. 16.1.2019 for
holding post of Campus Director, NIFT by the
President, SGPGI subject to the approval of the
Governing Body. However, the Governing Body
has refused such extension. The petitioner in a
bonafide manner continued on the post of
Campus Director, NIFT, Raebareli legitimately
expecting that since the President of SGPGI is
also President / Chairman of the Governing
Body of SGPGI, therefore, the said decision of
the President would be upheld by the Governing
Body. There is no doubt that the decision
of the Governing Body would be binding
over the opinion or permission of an
individual member including the Chairman
/ President of the statutory body but at
the same time it may not be said to be any
lapse on the part of the petitioner to
continue on the post of Campus Director,
NIFT pursuant to the permission being
granted by the President for holding the
post
for
further
three
years
w.e.f.
16.1.2019. Therefore, the conduct of the
petitioner continuing on the post of Campus
Director, NIFT, Raebareli is bona fide conduct in
view of the facts and circumstances of the
present case. (Para 41)

B.
The
proceedings
of
departmental
inquiry start when the charge-sheet is
provided to the incumbent seeking his
explanation / defense reply. The rationale
behind it is very clear that the disciplinary
authority can take any decision on the conduct
of an employee or can absolve him considering
his / her bona fide, or could pass any alternative
or substitute order instead of issuing chargesheet for conducting full fledged disciplinary
inquiry. However, as soon as the charge-sheet
is provided to the incumbent indicating the
charges then it would be the very first stage of
initiation of departmental inquiry. (Para 44)

Therefore, the impugned order dated 23.4.2020
could not be treated as if the departmental
inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner.
It was, at the best, a warning to the effect that
if the petitioner does not obey the direction of
the competent authority the departmental
inquiry against the petitioner for awarding major
punishment may likely to be initiated. (Para 45)

The letter dated 9.10.2020 provides that the
departmental inquiry has been initiated against
the petitioner and inquiry officer has been
appointed with the direction to conclude the
departmental inquiry within a period of two
months. However, by that time no charge-sheet
was provided to the petitioner and before this,
the petitioner had already submitted his
application
dated
05.05.2020
for
seeking
voluntary retirement. (Para 46)

C. Voluntary retirement - General Rules of
SGPGI: Regulation 95 - The petitioner
submitted
an
application
for
voluntary
retirement on 5.5.2020 when no departmental
inquiry was pending against him. Therefore, the
petitioner was fulfilling both the conditions of
concerning general rule for accepting voluntary
retirement inasmuch as the petitioner has
already attained the required age and has
completed the requisite period of service and no