# Surendra Kumar Pandey and another v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 317
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-03-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16899 of 2001
- **Bench:** M. Katju, S.K. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surendra-kumar-pandey-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39826
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Article 226 of the Constitution of India-
the validity of waiting list- the life of the
waiting list is for a period of one year
and no reshuffling can be made after
expiry of that period from the candidates
of that waiting list, and the remaining
vacancies will have to be filled up by a
fresh selection.

(Held in para 6)
The life of the waiting list is for a period
of one year and no reshuffling can be
made after expiry of that period from the
candidates of that waiting list, and the
remaining vacancies will have to be filled
up by a fresh selection. Now there is no
provision of preparation of waiting list
and in view of the decision as has been
given by this court the life of the waiting
list also lapses after one year and
therefore on either court it appears that
the petitioners are not entitled go get
any relief.
Case law Discussed-
(1995) 2 UPLBEC 985
AIR 1990 SC 405
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
318
(1999) 3 SCC 696

## Text

2 All] Surendra Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of U.P. and others
317

11. In the case of Vishnu Prakash
and another Versus Sheela Devi (Smt.)
and others, (2001) 4 S.C.C., 729. The
Apex Court has held that where the lower
courts have ignored evidence on record,
including positive statements of witnesses
or findings in judgments in earlier related
cases or where parties have made certain
admissions in earlier cases, the High
Court can interfere in the second appeal.

12. In the case of D.S. Thimmappa
Versus Siddaramakka (1996) 8 S.C.C.,
365. It was observed that where the first
appellate court has failed to draw proper
inference from proved facts and to apply
law in proper perspective, the High Court
can interfere in the second appeal.

13. In the case of Jagdish Singh
Versus Natthu Singh, 1992 A.L.J., 620.
It was observed by the Apex Court that
findings of fact of the courts below due to
non-consideration of relevant evidence or
by essentially wrong approach are vitiated
and the High Court is not precluded from
recording proper findings.

14. In view of the decisions of the
Apex Court, in the circumstances, the
findings of the courts below regarding
fact can be set a side in this second
appeal.

15. Accordingly, the second appeal
is allowed with costs throughout and the
judgment and decree of the first appellate
court are quashed and that of the trial
court is restored.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.03.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16899 of 2001

Surendra Kumar Pandey and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Umesh Narain Sharma
Sri Arun Kumar Mishra
Sri Jai Prakash Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.N. Singh
S.C.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India-
the validity of waiting list- the life of the
waiting list is for a period of one year
and no reshuffling can be made after
expiry of that period from the candidates
of that waiting list, and the remaining
vacancies will have to be filled up by a
fresh selection.

(Held in para 6)
The life of the waiting list is for a period
of one year and no reshuffling can be
made after expiry of that period from the
candidates of that waiting list, and the
remaining vacancies will have to be filled
up by a fresh selection. Now there is no
provision of preparation of waiting list
and in view of the decision as has been
given by this court the life of the waiting
list also lapses after one year and
therefore on either court it appears that
the petitioners are not entitled go get
any relief.
Case law Discussed-
(1995) 2 UPLBEC 985
AIR 1990 SC 405
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
318
(1999) 3 SCC 696

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioners have prayed for issuance of a
writ
in
the
nature
of
Mandamus
commanding the respondents no. 1 and 3
to inform the vacancies to the respondents
no. 1 and 3 to inform the vacancies to the
respondent no.2 for recommending the
name of candidates from the waiting list
which is said to be maintained.

2. The facts as stated in the writ
petition are that for filling up different
posts in the State of U.P. through the
Combined
State
Upper
Subordinate
Examination, 1999 an advertisement was
published in the daily newspaper dated
1.1.1999. The petitioners filled their
forms
for
appearing
in
the
said
examination. In the final result so
declared petitioner No.2 was finally
selected and was allotted the post of
Assistant
Director
(Industry)
but
petitioner No. 1 was not selected. It is
stated in paragraph 11 of the writ petition
that the State Government has issued two
government orders dated 29.8.92 and
31.1.94
for
declaration
of
result,
preparation of the waiting list and the life
span of the waiting list. According to the
petitioners
in
accordance
with
the
government orders dated 29.8.92 and
31.1.94 the vacancies are liable to be
informed by the respective departments
within one year of the result to the
respondent No. 2 (U.P. Public Service
Commission) about the posts on which
the candidates have not turned up to join
their respective assignments, upon which
respondent
No.2
has
to
sent
recommendations of the candidates from
the waiting list. As this exercise was not
done by the respondent, the petitioners
have come to this court seeking a
direction to the respondents in this regard
to send names from the waiting list and
reshuffle the appointments.

3. We have heard learned counsel
for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel who represents the respondents
no. 1 and 3 and learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and
have also examined the facts as stated in
the writ petition and in the counter
affidavit
filed
on
behalf
of
the
respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that there was inaction on
the part of the respondents no. 1 and 3 in
not informing the vacancies to the
respondent no.2 which remained unfilled
in the combined State Upper Subordinate
Examination, 1999, on account of which
respondent No. 2 could not make
recommendation of the candidates out of
the waiting list, which is clearly illegal
and
arbitrary.
Learned
counsel
has
submitted that the respondents are under a
legal obligation to accept the petitioners
claim in the light of the government
orders
dated
29.8.92
and
31.1.94
(Annexure 6 and 7 to the petition). It has
been pointed out that in the event of
acceptance of the claim as prayed in this
writ petition, there is every chance that
the petitioner no. 2 could get a better
placement as per his preference and
petitioner no. 1 could get himself selected
on any post as he is virtually at the top of
the waiting list. Lastly, it has been
submitted that on similar set of facts in
pursuance of the directions issued by this
court in writ petition No. 54131 of 1999,
decided on 22.12.99 (vide annexure 12)
respondents have completed the exercise
2 All] Surendra Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of U.P. and others
319
and after reshuffling, recommended the
name of the candidates from the waiting
list and therefore the petitioner claim that
suitable directions be issued to the
respondents. In support of his submissions
learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied on the decision given by this court
in writ petition No. 18096 of 2001 dated
20.12.2001 Bibhakar Dwivedi and others
Vs. State of U.P. and other and decisions
reported in (1995) 2 U.P.L.B.E.C. 985
(Ram Darash Rai and others V. State of
U.P. and others), AIR 1990 SC 405 (P.
Mahendran and others V. Matteesh Y.
Annigeri and others), and (1999) 3 SCC
696 (Virendra S. Hooda and others V.
State of Haryana and another).

5. Learned Standing Counsel who
represents the respondents no. 1 and 3 and
learned
counsel
who
represents
respondent no. 2 have taken the same
stand
during
the
course
of
their
submission. It has been submitted that the
claim of the petitioner for consideration of
their claim and issuance of a direction to
the respondents no. 1 and 3 for
information regarding the vacancies to
enable the respondent no. 2 to send
recommendations,
based
on
the
government order dated 29.9.92 and
31.1.94 is clearly untenable as by the
subsequent
government
order
dated
15.11.99 (Annexure-7 to the petition) the
government
has
now
stopped
the
preparation of the waiting list. Learned
counsel submitted that the result of the
Combined
State
Upper
Subordinate
Examination, 1999 in respect of which the
relief is being claimed was published on
6.5.2000 in which no waiting list could be
prepared and there was no occasion for
the respondents for reshuffling and
sending the name of any candidates.
Learned counsel submitted that the
decision referred to by the learned counsel
for the petitioner in Bibhakar Dwivedi
and others (Supra) had no application to
the facts of the present case as in that case
it was observed by this court that the
result of the examination was published
before the said government orders and
hence it was held that the government
order was not applicable to the facts of
that case.

6. In view of the aforesaid
submission advanced from both sides it
appears that the result of the Combined
State Upper Subordinate Examination,
1999 was published on 6.5.2000 as stated
in para 8 of the writ petition. The
government order which at present holds
the field has been issued on 15th
November, 1999 which clearly provides
that no waiting list will be prepared
except in respect to selection which is for
a single post. It has been further provided
in the said government order that no
reshuffling
exercise
will
be
now
undertaken. In view of this government
order dated 15th November, 1999 the
claim of the petitioner about intimation
about the remaining vacancies for the
purpose of reshuffling and sending of the
names from the waiting list do not appear
to be justified. Otherwise also as has been
stated by the petitioners themselves,
within the period of one year no name has
been asked by the department from the
Commission to be recommended from the
waiting list and therefore, petitioners
cannot claim any relief of sending names
out of the waiting list. Even according to
clause 5 of the earlier Government Order
dated 31.1.94 (Annexure 7 to the petition)
the waiting list cannot survive after 1 year
of the result unless within that period of 1
year the department concerned asks the
commission to send names from the
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
320
waiting list. In the present case it appears
that the department concerned did not ask
the commission to send names within 1
year and hence the list has lapsed. This
Court has had occasion to consider about
the life of the waiting list which was
prevalent prior to the government order
dated 15.11.99. It has been held that the
life of the waiting list is for a period of
one year and no reshuffling can be made
after expiry of that period from the
candidates of that waiting list, and the
remaining vacancies will have to be filled
up by a fresh selection. Reference can be
made to the decisions given in writ
petition No. 26913 of 2001 decided on
18.1.2002 Dharmendra Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others. The decisions as has been
referred by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in (1995) 2 UPLBEC 985 (Ram
Darash Rai and others V. State of U.P.
and others), AIR 1990 SC 405 (P
Mahendran and others V. Matteesh Y
Annigeri and others) and (1999) 3 SCC
696 (Virendra S Hooda and others V.
State of Haryana and another), have no
application to the facts of the present case,
as we are of the opinion that now there is
no provision of preparation of waiting list
and in view of the decision as has been
given by this court the life of the waiting
list also lapses after one year and
therefore on either count it appears that
the petitioners are not entitled to get any
relief.

7. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, this writ petition fails and it is
accordingly dismissed without any order
as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: 16.3.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE G.P. MATHUR, J.
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8375 of 2002

Committee
of
Management,
Nagar
Sahkari Bank Ltd. and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Registrar,
Cooperative
Societies,
Gorakhpur and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Shashi Nandan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Singh
S.C.

Constitution
of
India-
Article
226-
Section 2 of U.P. Ordinance No. 27 of
2001- the amending Ordinance came
into force on 24.12.2001, which is prior
to the expiry of the term of the
petitioners which would have come to an
end on 28.12.2001 and, consequently,
they would be entitled to get the benefit
of the Ordinance and have got a right to
function for a period of five years.
(Held in para 11)
The alleged acquiescence on the part of
the petitioner nos. 2 cannot effect or
alter the legal position namely, that the
earlier Committee of Management whose
term was to expire on 28.12.2001 would
continue to function till 28.12.2003. The
writ petition, therefore, deserves to be
allowed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble G.P. Mathur, J.)

1. The question which requires
consideration
here
is
whether
the
Committee
of
Management
of
a