# Satya Prakash Yadav & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 900
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-18
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 1236 of 2019
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Ajit Kumar, Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satya-prakash-yadav-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54862
- **Pages:** 56

## Text

_Characters 0–39,977 of 146,768. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39977 for what follows._

900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
employees
of
the
State.
The
State
Government
has
complied
with
the
directions of this Court for the payment of
the outstanding dues in two tranches.
Insofar as the interest is concerned, we are
of the view that the rate of 12% per annum
which has been fixed by the High Court
should be suitably scaled down. While
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents
submits that the award of interest was on
account of the action of the Government
which was contrary to law, we are of the
view that the payment of interest cannot be
used as a means to penalize the State
Government. There can be no gainsaying
the fact that the Government which has
delayed the payment of salaries and
pensions should be directed to pay interest
at an appropriate rate."

20. Applying the principle laid
down by the Supreme Court in State of
Andhra Pradesh (supra) to the facts of
the present case, it is evident that Shambhu
Rao?s retiral benefits, including pension,
G.P.F., and other dues, constitute a rightful
entitlement for services rendered by him
over more than three decades. The payment
of such dues is mandated by law and the
applicable service rules and regulations.
The delay in releasing these amounts from
31.03.2022
until
22.04.2025
and
15.05.2025, despite repeated reminders and
contempt
proceedings,
clearly
caused
financial prejudice to Shambhu Rao. It is
well-settled legal principle that delays in
payment of salary or pensionary dues, must
be paid with interest at an appropriate rate
to compensate the employee for the loss
caused by such delay. Applying this
principle, Shambhu Rao is entitled to
receive interest at the rate of six percent per
annum on all delayed retiral benefits from
their respective due dates until actual
payment.
21. In view of the foregoing
discussions and consequential findings
arrived by us as above, Special Appeal
Defective No.- 656 of 2023 is hereby
dismissed.

22. Since we have upheld the
judgment of learned Single Judge challenge
in this appeal, Shambhu Rao?s appointment
and continuance in service and ultimate
retirement deserves to be awarded with all
post retirement benefits and for any delay
in disbursement of the same, also deserves
to be visited with interest which we assess
to be at the rate of 6%.

23. Accordingly, Special Appeal
Defective No.- 927 of 2025 along with writ
petition being Writ - A No.- 10356 of 2022,
the order passed therein dated 20.12.2022
was challenged, stands disposed of with
aforesaid directions.

24. All pending applications, stand
disposed of accordingly. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 900
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 1236 of 2019
Alongwith other cases

Satya Prakash Yadav & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1)
Constitutional
validity
of
issuing
advertisement for future vacancies on the
12 All. Satya Prakash Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
901
parameter of fundamental right of equal
opportunity guaranteed under Article 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India.
(2) Scope of the phrase 'year of recruitment'
used in new Rule 14 and effect of departing
from the word 'year', as was used in old Rule
14.
(3) Applicability of G.O. dated 09.02.2013 and
25.10.2019 and Overriding effect of the UP
Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department
Group 'B') Service Rules, 2007 framed under
Article 309 over the Executive instructions.
(4) Correctness of Kreetarth Mohan's case
upholding the requisition dated 07.11.2013
including the future vacancies.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Constitution of India -
Article 14 and 16 - Equal right of
opportunity - Recruitment - Post of
Assistant Engineer (Civil) - Advertisement
dated
24.12.2023
was
issued
for
vacancies of 640 posts - Subsequently
direction
was
issued
to
make
recommendation only against the posts
falling vacant up to the year 2013-14 (394
vacancies), i.e. during the course of the
recruitment year in which advertisement
was
issued,
and
not
against
future
vacancies - Validity challenged - Division
Bench referred the matter to Larger Bench
having noticed divergent views expressed
by
the
Division
Bench
in
Kreetarth
Mohan's case and a Single Judge Bench in
Satya Prakash Yadav's case, Israr Ahmad's
case and Kamal Kumar Pandey's case on
the
same
controversy
regarding
the
permissibility of including the future
vacancies
-
Candidate's
legitimate
expectation
to
participation
and
consideration for appointment against the
vacancies occurring during the course of
the recruitment year in which they acquire
the eligibility, explained. (E-1)
Held : It is noteworthy that earlier the phrase
'year of recruitment' was not used in Rule 14
but only the word 'year'. In Rule 14 of the
present Rules, 2007, there is a clear departure
in the language used. Now, the phrase 'year of
recruitment' has been employed. It clearly
evinces that determination of vacancies has
direct co-relation with the vacancies occurring
during the course of the year of recruitment and
which alone would be intimated to the
Commission for being filled. [Para 31]
Further held : In the matter of Public
employment, the provisions of Article 14 and 16
of the Constitution would come into play. Article
16 of the Constitution grants equality in the
matter of opportunity to employment in the
public office. It is trite that the eligibility of a
candidate is to be considered for appointment
with reference to the last date of making of
application for recruitment. If the submission in
support of inclusion of the future vacancies of
year 2014-15 and 2015-16 is accepted, the
effect would be that the candidates who would
have acquired eligibility for appointment to the
vacancies arising in the year 2014-15 and 201516 would stand excluded even from the zone of
consideration, as on the last date of making
application pursuant to the advertisement dated
24.12.2013 they may be found lacking of the
eligibility. Such candidates had the legitimate
expectation to participation and consideration
for appointment against the vacancies occurring
during the course of the recruitment year in
which they acquire the eligibility. This is also the
objective of Rule 14 read with the definition
clause of the 'year of recruitment'. It ultimately
results in according equal opportunity to the
eligible section to public employment [Para 40]
Ultimately held : The judgment in the case of
Kreetarth Mohan upholding the requisition dated
07.11.2013 including the future vacancies for
the recruitment years 2014-15 and 2015-16
does not lay down any ratio or principle of law.
Conversely, the judgments of the learned Single
Judge in Satya Prakash Yadav's case, Israr
Ahmad's case and Kamal Kumar Pandey's case
holding that in view of Rule 3(l) and Rule 14 of
the
2007
Rules,
the
vacancies
till
the
recruitment year 2013-14 only could have been
filled, lay down the correct law. Accordingly, the
exclusion of the vacancies of the future
recruitment years is not found to suffer from
any illegality. [Para 63]
(B)
Service law
-
Determination
of
vacancies - G.O. dated 09.02.2013 and
25.10.2019 were issued to include the
future vacancies also - Applicability -
Overriding effect of the Rules of 2007 over
the
Executive
instructions
felt
into
consideration. (E-1)
Held : The Rules 2007 have been framed under
the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The
Rules
makes
specific
provision
for
determination and intimation to the Commission
the number of vacancies to be filled during the
course of the year of recruitment. The field is
already occupied. Consequently, the G.O. dated
09.02.2013 and 25.10.2019, which are general
in nature, cannot be applied to the recruitment
in question, in view of the principles laid down
by the Apex Court in the above noted
judgments. The executive instructions cannot
supplant the Rules framed under proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution. [Para 39]

Case Law Cited
Service Bench No. 5195 of 2016, Kreetarth
Mohan vs. State Of U.P. and others decided on
23.03.2018; Malik Mazhar Sultan vs. U.P. Public
Service Commission and others, 2008(17)SCC
703; Malik Mazhar Sultan vs. U.P. Public Service
Commission, 2009 (17) SCC 24; State of Bihar
vs. Secretariat Assistant successful Examinees
Union 1986, 1994(1) SCC 126; Neelima
Shangla vs. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC
268; Vivek Kaisth vs. State Of Himanchal
Pradesh and others, 2024 (2) SCC 269;
Sankarshan Dass vs. Union Of India, 1991(3)
SCC 47; Manoj Kumar vs. Union Of India and
others, 2024(3) SCC 563; Vansh vs. Ministry
Of Education and others, 2024 SSC OnLine SC
342; Shmita Srivastava vs. State Of Madhya
Pradesh and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
764; Union Public Service Commission vs.
Gaurav Dwivedi and Others, 1999 5 SCC 180;
Renu and others vs. District and sessions
judge, Tis hazari and another (2014) 14 SCC
50; (l) Tej Prakash Pathak and others vs.
Rajasthan High court and others, 2013 (4)
SCC 540; Parth Das & Ors vs. The State of
Tripura & Ors., 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 1273;
Ajith G. Das and others vs. State of Kerala
and others, 2024 SCC onLine SC 3820; Union
of India vs. A. Shainamol, (2021) 20 SCC 267;
Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Suresh Prasad
and others, (2004) 2 SCC 681; State of
Haryana
vs.
Subash
Chander
Marwaha,
(1974) 3 SCC 220; Sant Ram Sharma vs.
State Of Rajasthan and others, 1967 SCC
OnLine SC 16; A.B. Krishna and Ors. vs. State
of Karnataka and Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 495;
Parth Das & Ors vs. The State of Tripura &
Ors, (2025) 0 Supreme (SC) 1273; Jaiveer
Singh and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1584, 2023 INSC
1024; Bank of Baroda and Another vs. G.
Palani and Others, (2022) 5 SCC 612; A.P.
Christians Medical Educational Society vs.
Government of Andhra Pradesh and another,
(1986) 2 SCC 667; State of Bihar and others
vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another,
(2000) 9 SCC 94; Haryana vs. Ram Kumar
Mann (1997) 3 SCC 321; Bhavnagar University
Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC
111; Escorts Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central
Excise, Delhi-II, (2004) 8 SCC 335; Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And another vs.
N.R. Vairamani And Another 2004 (8) SCC
579; State of Orissa vs. MD. Illiyas, 2006 (1)
SCC 275; Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank
Ltd. & Others vs. Commissioner of Income
Tax, Calicut & another, 2001 (7) SCC 90 -
referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 14, 16, 166(1)
and 309; Uttar Pradesh Service of Engineers
(Irrigation Department Group 'B') Service
Rules, 2007 - Rules 3(1), 4, 5, 14 and 15;
Uttar Pradesh Service of Engineers (Irrigation
Department Group 'B') Service Rules, 1993 -
Rule 3(j); UP Higher Judicial Service Rules,
1975 - Rule 8.

List of Keywords
Recruitment;
Reduction
of
vacancies;
Future vacancies; Years of recruitment;
Service
jurisprudence;
Anticipated
vacancies; Determination of number of
vacancies; Vested right; Interplay between
the
statutory
rules/regulations
having
statutory force and Government Orders
referable to the power under Article 166(1)
of the Constitution; Executive instruction;
Zone
of
consideration;
Legitimate
expectation;
Equal
opportunity;
Public
employment;
Indefeasable
right
for
appointment.

Case Arising From
Reference made to the Larger Bench looking
into divergent views expressed by an earlier
Division Bench in Kreetarth Mohan's case and a
Single Judge Bench in Satya Prakash Yadav's
case, Israr Ahmad's case and Kamal Kumar
Pandey's
case
on
the
same
controversy
regarding the permissibility of including the
future vacancies.
12 All. Satya Prakash Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
903
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant : Ashok Khare, Sr.
Advs.; U.K. Saxena, Sr. Advs. Navin Kumar
Sharma, Umang Srivastav
Advs. for the Respondents : Manish Goyal,
Additional Advocate General; A. K. Goyal, ACSC;
Chandan Kumar, SC; Avneesh Tripathi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J.,
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.
&
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. A Division Bench, having noticed
divergent views expressed by an earlier
Division Bench and a Single Judge Bench
on the same controversy, passed the
following order on 03.02.2025:

"1. The special appeal is directed
against the order of learned Single Judge
dated 06.11.2019 dismissing the writ
petition of the appellants. The petitioners
had challenged a communication sent by
the office of Chief Engineer, Irrigation
Department of the State U.P. dated
21.06.2018
addressed
to
the
State
Government,
whereby
recommendation
was made to fill up only 394 post falling
vacant in the recruitment years 2011-12,
2012-13 and 2013-14 through the State
Engineering
Services
Recruitment
Examination, 2014. The main ground of
challenge was that the advertisement was
issued on 24.11.2013 for filling up 640
posts and after issuance of advertisement,
the vacancies could not have been reduced
and that it was permissible to include
future vacancies of next three recruitment
years. Before the learned Single Judge,
reliance was placed on a Division Bench
judgment in Writ (S.B.) No. 1596 of 2016
where the Division Bench declined to
accept challenge to the requisition dated
07.11.2013 by the Secretary, Irrigation
Department, to the U.P. Public Service
Commission informing the Commission of
the vacancies against which recruitment
was to be held. It also included the future
vacancies of recruitment years 2014-15
and 2015-16. The learned Single Judge
held that in accordance with Rules of 1993,
the selection could be held only for the
vacancies occurring in the recruitment year
and future vacancies could not be included.
It has been held that in case future
vacancies are also included, the persons
who would acquire eligibility in the
subsequent recruitment years would
stand excluded from the selection process
and this would result in violation of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In
other words, the view taken by the Division
Bench in respect of the same selection has
not been followed for the reasons stated in
the judgment.

2.
This
Division
Bench
is
therefore, having one judgment, which
takes a view in favour of inclusion of future
vacancies and a judgment of learned Single
Judge taking a contrary view. The said
judgment as noted above duly takes notice
of the Division bench judgment.

3. We are of the opinion that in
the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
controversy should be settled by a larger
Bench.

4. Accordingly, we direct the
office to place the record of the instant case
along with all connected matters before
Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate
orders."

2. Pursuant thereto, the present batch
of intra court appeals and connected
petitions have been placed before us, by
order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Facts:

3. Broadly stated, the facts are that the
State of Uttar Pradesh (in short 'State') in
order to fill up the posts of Assistant
Engineer
(Civil)
in
the
Irrigation
Department
sent
a
requisition
on
06.07.2012 to the U.P. Public Service
Commission (in short 'Commission') for
262 vacancies for the posts of Assistant
Engineer (Civil) for the recruitment year
2011-12. In continuation of the same,
another requisition was sent by the Special
Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to
the Commission on 07.11.2013 for 378
posts for the vacancies pertaining to the
recruitment
years
2012-13,
2013-14,
2014-15 and 2015-16 (121+86+79+92).
Thereafter,
an
advertisement
No.
A-8/-E-1/2013
dated
24-12-2013
was
issued by the Commission notifying a
Combined
Recruitment
of
Assistant
Engineer (Civil, Mechanical, Agriculture)
for several departments of the State
Government,
including
the
Irrigation
Department. The total number of vacancies
advertised for Assistant Engineer (Civil) in
the
Irrigation
Department
was
640
(262+378). The last date for submission of
applications was 24-01-2014.

4. According to the State, an error
occurred in the calculation of the vacancies
of the Irrigation Department, while sending
requisition to the Commission. The total
sanctioned strength of Assistant Engineer
(Civil) was 1588, out of which 804 posts
were for direct recruitment and 784 for
promotion. Out of 804 posts earmarked for
direct
recruitment,
330
posts
stood
occupied by direct recruits thus leaving
only
474
posts.
Consequently,
the
Personnel Department of the State was
consulted, and on 01-11-2017, the Chief
Engineer,
Karmik
(Establishment-II)
Irrigation
and
Water
Resources
Department, U.P. submitted a report before
the
Special
Secretary,
Irrigation
Department,
stating
that
against
the
sanctioned strength of 804 posts for direct
recruitment, 330 posts had already been
filled, so selections were required to be
conducted for only 474 vacancies against
the requisitioned 640 posts. Therein, he
also specified the manner, in which the
earlier requisitions were to be amended.
The same is as follows:-

संशोधित ताधलका

dze
la-

धववरण
पिों
की
संख्या

1.
वतामान में सीिी भती
संवगा
के
सहार्क
अधभर्ंता
(धसधवल)
के
कार्ारत/ भरे पिों की
संख्या

305
2.
चर्न वषा 2009-10 एवं
2010-11 हेतु अधिर्ाधचत
पिों
से
सम्बक्तन्धत
सक्तम्मधलत राज्य अधभर्ंत्रण
परीक्षा-2011 में लोक सेवा
आर्ोग, उ०प्र० इलाहाबाि
द्वारा
चर्धनत
182
अभ्यधर्थार्ो में से शेष बचे
अभ्यधर्थार्ों
की
संख्या
(धजनके धनर्ुक्तक्त आिेश
शासन स्तर पर जारी धकए
जाने
हैं)

08
3.
लोक सेवा आर्ोग, उ०प्र०,
इलाहाबाि
द्वारा
धवकलांगजन
हेतु
(बैकलॉग/धवशेष
चर्न)
17
12 All. Satya Prakash Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
905
परीक्षा-2013
में
धवकलांगजन के धवज्ञाधपत
पि

4.
उक्त के फलस्वरूप सीिी
भती संवगा के सहार्क
अधभर्ंता (धसधवल) के भरे
पिों
की
संख्या

330
5.
धसंचाई एवं जल संसािन
धवभाग, उ०प्र० में सीिी
भती संवगा के सहार्क
अधभर्ंता
(धसधवल)
के
स्वीकृत पिों की संख्या
804
6.
सीिी
भती
संवगा
के
सहार्क
अधभर्ंता
(धसवल) के स्वीकृत पिों
के सापेक्ष भरे पिों की
क्तस्र्थधत
के
अनुसार
सहार्क
अधभर्ंता
के
वतामान में ररक्त पिों की
क्तस्र्थधत (804-330)
474
7.
चर्न वषा 2011-12 से
2015-16 तक अधिर्ाधचत्त
पिों की संख्या धजनके
समबन्ध में लोक सेवा
आर्ोग, उ०प्र० इलाहाबाि
द्वारा
चर्न
सम्बन्धी
कार्ावाही प्रगधत पर है

640
8.
वतामान में सीिी भती
संवगा
के
सहार्क
अधभर्ंता (धसधवल) के 474
ररक्त पि उपलब्ध है परन्तु
चर्न वषा 2011-12 से
2015-16
तक
640
अधिर्ाधचत पि, धजनके
सम्बन्ध में लोक सेवा
आर्ोग द्वारा कार्ावाही की
166
जा रही gS] esa inksa ds
vkf/kD; dh fLFkfr (640474= 166)

5. Accordingly, a communication
came to be issued by the State, addressed to
the Commission on 14.11.2017, for making
selections against 474 posts of Assistant
Engineer (Civil). It states that the Chief
Engineer vide his aforesaid letter dated
01.11.2017 had informed that as envisaged
under Rule 8 of the U.P. Government
Servants
Seniority
Rules,
1991,
a
consolidated seniority list was in existence.
The said list was required to be considered
while sending the requisition. However,
without taking into consideration the said
list, requisitions were sent. This resulted in
requisition of 166 candidates in excess of
the existing vacancies. It was stated that
only 474 posts of Assistant Engineer
(Civil) were vacant and accordingly,
direction was issued to make selection of
474
candidates
only
as
against
the
requisition of 640. Along with the said
communication, copy of letter of the Chief
Engineer dated 01.11.2017 was annexed.

6. Further, correspondence took
place for clarity on the process of making
selections for the vacancies advertised on
24.12.2013.
In
reply
to
a
State
Government's letter dated 30.01.2018 and
Commission's letter dated 23.01.2018, the
Chief Engineer Karmik (Establishment-II)
Irrigation
and
Water
Resources
Department, by letter dated 10.05.2018,
furnished
information
regarding
the
vacancies available to be filled for the
recruitment years 2011-12 to 2016-17,
totalling 474 posts, the break up of which is
as follows:

क्रम
चर्न वषा
ररक्त पिों
कु
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
संख्या

की संख्या

ल पि

1
2011-12
255
454
2
2012-13
66
3
2013-14
73
4
2014-15
51
5
2015-16
09
6
2016-17
20
20
र्ोग

474

7. On 18.05.2018, the State issued a
communication to the Commission to act in
accordance
with
the
letter
dated
10.05.2018. Thereafter, by communication
dated 31.05.2018, the Commission sought
clarification from the State regarding the
actual number of vacancies available, as
there were two communications on record -
one dated 28.09.2015, indicating that the
total vacancies available for the recruitment
years 2011-12 to 2013-14 were 469, and
the other dated 10.05.2018, annexing
therewith
a
letter
of
the
Irrigation
Department of the even date, disclosing
394 vacancies (255+66+73) upto the
recruitment year 2013-14. On 05.06.2018,
the Joint Secretary, State of U.P. addressed
a letter to the Engineer-in-Chief and the
Head of the Department, Irrigation and
Water Resources, Lucknow seeking inputs
in the light of the query made by the
Commission on 31.05.2018.

8. The Chief Engineer, Karmik
Establishment-II, Irrigation and Water
Resources Department, U.P. by his letter
dated 21.06.2018 informed that the total
number of vacancies available for the post
of Assistant Engineer (Civil) for the
recruitment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and
2013-14 was 394 (255+66+73) and only
these vacancies were required to be filled
up. On 02.07.2018, the State Government,
through its Joint Secretary, addressed a
communication
to
the
Commission,
directing it to act in accordance with the
letter dated 21.06.2018 while making
selections for the post of Assistant
Engineer
(Civil)
in
the
Irrigation
Department.

9. The direction issued by the State
to
the
Commission
to
make
recommendation only against the posts
falling vacant up to the year 2013-14 (394
vacancies), i.e. during the course of the
recruitment year in which advertisement
was
issued,
and
not
against
future
vacancies,
led
to
filing
of
several
appeals/writ petitions.

Category 'A' comprises of the Intra
Court Appeals preferred by the writ
petitioners/appellants whose writ petitions,
questioning the letter dated 21.06.2018
issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation
Department, State of U.P., whereby only
394 posts were recommended to be filled,
stood dismissed.

Category 'B' comprises of the writ
petitions
questioning
the
said
recommendation of the Chief Engineer
dated 21.06.2018.

Category 'C' comprises of the writ
petitions wherein challenge has been laid to
the final result dated 03.05.2019.

Category 'D' comprises of the writ
petitions seeking a direction to fill up all
the posts advertised on 24.12.2013.

Category 'E' are the writ petitions
wherein the challenge has been raised to
the result dated 02.02.2019, limiting the
12 All. Satya Prakash Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
907
declaration of result to vacancies upto the
recruitment year 2013-14.

Category 'F' are the writ petitions
wherein the writ petitioners seek a direction
to call them for interview.

10. During course of hearing on
14.08.2025, the following order was
passed:-

 "Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Umang
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants, Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned
counsel for the respondent No.- 3, namely
U.P. Public Service Commission and Sri
Manish
Goyal,
learned
Additional
Advocate General assisted by Sri Kunal
Ravi
Singh,
learned
Chief
Standing
Counsel and Sri A.K. Goyal, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State respondents.

 As prayed on behalf of State
respondents and U.P. Public Service
Commission, three weeks' time is granted
to them to file exhaustive counter affidavits
annexing
therewith
all
the
relevant
communications including letters of the
Commission dated 19th May, 2014 and
31st May, 2018 and the letters of State
Government dated 5th June, 2018, 10th
May, 2018 and 18th May, 2018 and serve a
copy of the affidavits upon learned counsel
for the appellants appearing in various
cases.

 Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants will have one week's time to file
rejoinder affidavit.

 List
this
matter
on
18th
September, 2025 at 2:00 pm."

11. In compliance to the said order,
supplementary counter affidavit has been
filed both by the State and Commission.

12.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants/ writ petitioners chose not to file
any reply to the supplementary counter
affidavit filed by the State and the
Commission
and
accordingly
final
arguments were heard. Written submissions
were also filed by the rival parties.

ARGUMENTS
OF
APPELLANTS/ WRIT PETITIONERS

13. Shri Ashok Khare and Shri
Uday Karan Saxena, Senior Advocates,
assisted by Shri Umang Shrivastav and
Shri Naveen Kumar Sharma, learned
counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners,
submitted that the judgment and order of
the learned Single Judge rejecting the
challenge
to
the
decision
of
the
Engineer-in-Chief,
Karmik
Establishment-II,
dated
21-06-2018
is
manifestly illegal and cannot be sustained.
Elaborating the submission, it is urged that
as per requisitions dated 06-07-2012 and
07-11-2013, a total of 640 (267+378)
vacancies of Assistant Engineer (Civil)
were advertised on 24-12-2013. Once the
selection process had commenced, there
could not have been reduction of the
vacancies of Assistant Engineer (Civil)
from 640, as advertised, to 394. It is further
contended that though on 01.11.2017, the
total vacancies of Assistant Engineer was
shown to be 474, however, without any
rationale or basis, the same stood further
reduced to 394. The submission is that a
conscious decision was taken by the State
Government while sending the requisition
for 640 vacancies, and the said decision
could not have been reviewed.
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14. Argument is that there is
Government Order dated 09.07.2013 which
provides that while sending requisition to
the UPPSC, future vacancies of three
recruitment years should also be included.
It was in view of the said G.O. that
requisition dated 07.11.2013 was sent,
including
future
vacancies
of
the
recruitment years 2014-15 and 2015-16
also. The Government is bound by the
policy decision contained in the G.O.

15. Reliance has been placed on the
Division Bench judgement in Service
Bench No. 5195 of 2016 (Kreetarth Mohan
vs. State Of U.P. and others), decided on
23.03.2018, to contend that the requisition
dated 07.11.2013, which included the
further vacancies of the years 2014-15 and
2015-16 as well, has already been upheld
and the said Division Bench judgment was
binding upon the learned Single Judge.

16. It is also contended that though
Rule 3(l) of the State of Uttar Pradesh
Service
of
Engineers
(Irrigation
Department Group 'B') Service Rules,
2007 defines 'year of recruitment' as a
period of twelve months commencing on
the first day of July of the calendar year
and as per Rule 14, the appointing authority
has to determine and intimate to the
Commission the number of vacancies to be
filled during the course of the year of
recruitment, however, in view of the
Government order dated 09.07.2013, as
reiterated
on
25.10.2019,
the
future
vacancies which were to arise during the
next three years were also to be included.

17. Additionally, it has been argued
that it is not something foreign to service
jurisprudence to include the anticipated
vacancies which would arise in future as
the same stands widely accepted and is
already provided in Rule 8 of the UP
Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975. It has
been contended that as per the counter
affidavit of the Commission sworn by the
Deputy Secretary, U.P. Public Service
Commission,
U.P.
Lucknow
dated
15.09.2014, the decision to limit the
recruitment
to
vacancies
upto
the
recruitment year 2013-14 was taken by a
Committee constituted by the Public
Service Commission at its own level. It
does not have the approval of the State. The
contention is that the Commission had no
authority under law to reduce the vacancies
which were advertised, it being only a
recruiting agency. It is also contended that
even though the writ petitioners do no
possess
any
indefeasible
right
for
appointment but that does not give license
to the respondents to act arbitrarily and
once it is estalished that the decision of the
respondents to reduce the vacancies is
without any rationale, then the Court
should come to the rescue of the appellants/
writ petitioners. Further contention is that
once the appellants/ writ petitioners got
selected,
then
in
view
of
OfficeMemorandum dated 15.11.1999, they are to
be given appointment/joining, the present
case not being a case falling under the
exceptions stipulated therein.

18. Lastly, it has been submitted
that the writ petitioners/ appellants have
been discriminated, particularly, when
barring the post of Assistant Engineer
(Civil) in Irrigation Department, there has
been no reduction of the vacancies of
Assistant Engineer in other departments
which were advertised on 24.12.2013.

19. In order to buttress the said
submissions, reliance has been placed upon
the judgement in; (a) Malik Mazhar Sultan
vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and
12 All. Satya Prakash Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
909
others 2008(17)SCC 703; (b) Malik
Mazhar Sultan vs. U.P. Public Service
Commission 2009 (17) SCC 24; (c) State
of
Bihar
vs.
Secretariat
Assistant
successful
Examinees
Union
1986,
1994(1) SCC 126; (d) Neelima Shangla vs.
State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 268; (e)
Vivek Kaisth vs. State Of Himanchal
Pradesh and others 2024 (2) SCC 269 (f)
Sankarshan Dass vs. Union Of India,
1991(3) SCC 47; (g) Manoj Kumar vs.
Union Of India and others, 2024(3) SCC
563 (h) Vansh vs. Ministry Of Education
and others, 2024 SSC OnLine SC 342 (i)
Shmita Srivastava vs. State Of Madhya
Pradesh and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
764; (j) Union Public Service Commission
v. Gaurav Dwivedi and Others, 1999 5
SCC 180; (k) Renu and others vs. District
and sessions judge, Tis hazari and another
(2014) 14 SCC 50; (l) Tej Prakash Pathak
and others vs. Rajasthan High court and
others 2013 4 SCC 540; (m) Parth Das &
Ors v. The State of Tripura & Ors 2025 0
Supreme (SC) 1273;

ARGUMENT ADVANCED ON
BEHALF OF THE STATE

20. Shri Manish Goyal, learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Shri A.K. Goyal and Shri Chandan Kumar,
learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has
submitted that none of the contentions
raised have any legs to stand. Submission is
that the State being a model employer is to
act within the four corners of law, within
the ambit of the Rules. According to him,
selection for the post of Assistant Engineer
(Civil) stands regulated by 2007 Rules.
Contention is that Rule 3(l) defines 'year of
recruitment' which means a period of
twelve months commencing on the first day
of July of the calendar year and since the
advertisement
was
published
on
24-12-2013, thus, as per Rule 14 of the
2007 Rules, the selections could only be
conducted for the vacancies up to the
recruitment year 2013-14. The anticipated
vacancies for the recruitment years 2014-15
and 2015-16 which had been mistakenly
requisitioned were rightly excluded on
basis of a conscious decision of the State
Government
dated
21-06-2018,
communicated to the Commission on
02.07.2018.

21. Argument is that the reliance
placed upon the Government Orders dated
09-07-2013
and
25-10-2019
is
misconceived
and
out
of
context,
particularly, when Government orders
cannot amend, alter or supplant the
statutory rules. He further submits that the
Division Bench judgment in Kreetarth
Mohan (supra) does not lay down any
principle of law. The challenge raised
against the inclusion of the future vacancy
was negated mainly on the ground that the
Government Order dated 09-07-2013 was
not impugned in the writ petition.

22. In a nutshell, the submission is
that in the absence of any challenge raised
to the definition of the 'year of recruitment'
under Rule 3 (l) and the provision relating
to determination of the vacancies on the
basis of the 'year of recruitment' as per Rule
14, the plea for inclusion of future
vacancies has no merits.

23. It is also submitted on behalf of
the State that it is the prerogative of the
State, as an employer, to determine the
number of vacancies, and to fill or not to
fill whole of the vacancies advertised.
Argument is also to the extent that the writ
petitioners/ appellants do not possess any
indefeasible right for being accorded
appointment as even otherwise mere
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
selection does not confer any vested right
to be appointed. Reliance has been placed
upon the judgments in (a) Ajith G. Das and
others vs. State of Kerala and others 2024
SCC onLine Sc 3820; (b) Union of India
vs. A. Shainamol (2021) 20 SCC 267; (c)
Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Suresh
Prasad and others, (2004) 2 SCC 681; (d)
State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander
Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220; (e) Sant
Ram Sharma vs. State Of Rajasthan and
others, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 16; (f) A.B.
Krishna and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka
and Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 495; (g) Parth Das
& Ors v. The State of Tripura & Ors,
(2025) 0 Supreme (SC) 1273.

ARGUMENT ADVANCED ON
BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION

24. Shri Avneesh Tripathi, who
appears for the Commission, has adopted
the arguments of Shri Manish Goyal,
Additional Advocate General. He has
nothing to add, except that the selections
have been done as per the Rules
governing
the
subject
and
the
appellants/writ petitioners have no legal
right to appointment. It is also contended
that the Commission, being a recruiting
agency, acts upon the directions of the
State, which it had followed in the instant
case.

RELEVANT STATUTORY
PROVISIONS

 "The Uttar Pradesh Service of
Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group
'B') Service Rule, 2007

 Rule 3 (l) 'Year of recruitment'
means
a
period
of
twelve
months
commencing on the first day of July of a
calendar year.
 4. Cadre of the Service.- (1) The
strength of the Service and of each
category of posts therein shall be such as
may be determined by the Government
from time to time.

 (2) The strength of the Service
and of each category of posts therein shall,
until orders varying the same are passed
under sub-rule (1), be as given in Appendix
"A" Provided that-

 (i) the appointing authority may
leave unfilled or the Governor may hold in
abeyance any vacant post, without thereby
entitling any person to compensation; or

 (ii) the Governor may create such
additional permanent or temporary posts
as he may consider proper.

 5.
Source
of
Recruitment.-
Recruitment of the posts of Assistant
Engineer (Civil or Mechanical) in the
Service shall be so arranged that-

 (1) 50 2/3 percent posts in the
cadre are filled in by direct recruits
selected through the Commission.

 (2) 49 1/3 percent posts in the
cadre are filled in by promotees through
the Commission, which shall consist of-

 (a) In Civil Branch-

 (i) 47 1/3 percent shall be filled
in from amongst substantively appointed
Junior
Engineers
(Civil)
who
have
completed seven years service as such on
the first day of the year of recruitment.

 (ii) One percent shall be filled in
from amongst such substantively appointed
Computers (Civil) who possess one of the
12 All. Satya Prakash Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
911
qualifications mentioned in Appendix "B"
or who possess Bachelor's degree in Civil
Engineering from a recognised Institution
or are Associate Members or the Institution
of Engineers (India) (Civil Engineering
Branch) and who have completed seven
years service as such on the first day of the
year of recruitment.

 (iii) One percent shall be filled in
from amongst such substantively appointed
Research
Supervisors
who
possess
Bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering
from a recognised institution or are
Associate Members of the Institution of
Engineers
(India)
(Civil
Engineering
Branch) and who have completed seven
years service as such on the first day of the
year of recruitment.

 (b) In Mechanical Branch-

 49 1/3 percent shall be filled in
from amongst such substantively appointed
Junior Engineers (Mechanical) who have
completed seven years service as such on
the first day of the year of recruitment:

 Provided that the appointing
authority may regulate the recruitment
by
promotion
in
any
year
of
recruitment in such manner that the
prescribed percentage for promotion is
maintained.

 Rule
14.-
Determination
of
Vacancies-- The appointing authority shall
determine and intimate to the Commission
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 candidates belonging to Scheduled
Castes,
Scheduled
Tribes
and
other
categories under rule 6.

 15.
Procedure
for
direct
recruitment.-
(1)
Applications
for
permission to appear in the competitive
examination shall be invited by the
Commission in the form published in the
advertisement issued by the Commission.

 (2)
No
candidate
shall
be
admitted to the examination unless he holds
a certificate for admission issued by the
Commission.

 (3) 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 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 upto
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.

 (4)
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. 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 then in such
situation the names of the candidates shall
be arranged in accordance with the
general policy of the Commission. The
912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Commission shall forward the list to the
appointing authority."

Relevant
extract
of
the
advertisement dated 24.12.2013

S.
no

Nam
e of
Depa
rtme
nt

Name
of
Post

Tot
al
vac
anc
ies

S
C
of
U.
P.
ST
of
U.
P

OB
C
of
U.
P.

G
e
n
e
r
al
Br
an
ch
1.
Irrig
ation
Dept
t.

Asstt.
Engg.
(Civil
)
640

13
4
13
173
3
2
0
Ci
vil
2.
Irrig
ation
Dept
t.

Asst.
Engg.
(Mec
hanic
al)
89
03
-
23
6
3
Me
ch
ani
cal
3.
Mino
r
Irrig
ation
Dept
t.

Asst.
Engg.
(Agri
cultur
e)
10
-
-
04
0
6
Ag
ric
ult
ur
e
4.
Mino
r
Irrig
ation
Dept
t.
Asstt.
Engg.
(Civil
)
10

2
-
3
5
Ci
vil
5.
Mino
r
Irrig
ation
Dept
t.
Asst.
Engg.
(Mec
hanic
al)

04
-
-
01
0
3
Me
ch
ani
cal

6.
Rura
l
Engi
neeri
ng
Servi
ces
Dept
t.
Asstt.
Engg.
(Civil
)

24
05
-
12
0
7
Ci
vil

7.
Rura
l
Engi
neeri
ng
Servi
ces
Dept
Asstt.
Engg.
(Elect
rical)

01
-
-
-
0
1
El
ect
ric
al
t.
8.
Land
Deve
leop
ment
and
Wate
r
Reso
urces
Dept
t
Bhoo
mi
Sanra
kshan
Adhik
ari
/Tech
nical
Office
r
08
-
-
03
0
5
Ag
ric
ult
ur
e/
Ci
vil

9.
Publi
c
Work
s
Dept
t.
(P.W
.D.)

Asstt.
Engg.
(Civil
)
140
-
03
23
1
1
4
Ci
vil
10
.
Grou
nd
Wate
r
Dept
t.

Asstt.
Engg.
(Civil
)

06
-
-
-

Ci
vil
11
.
Grou
nd
Wate
r
Dept
t
.

Asst.
Engg.
(Mec
hanic
al)

04
-
-
-

Me
ch
ani
cal
.

Pay Scale: Rs. 15,600/- Rs. 39,100/-
(Grade Pay Rs. 5400/- Post-Class II,
Gazetted). Note:- No. of vacancies may
increase or decease.

REQUISITIONS

"सत्य प्रधतधलधप

संख्या:-1552/12-27-धसं-2-3(80)/06

प्रेषक,
नवीन चन्द्र धत्रपाठी
संर्ुक्त सधचव
उत्तर प्रिेश शासन।

सेवा में,
12 All.