# ANUPAL SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2019] 12 S.C.R. 1071
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-09-30
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.4815 of 2019
- **Bench:** R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/anupal-singh-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-through-principal-secretary-personnel-33126
- **Pages:** 54

## Headnote

Service Law: Selection process - Reservation policy - Post
of Technical Assistant - Appellants as well as private respondents
applied for and appeared in the written examination held in 2014 -
As per U.P. Reservation Act, specific percentages of vacancies were
reserved for different categories - It was brought to notice of State
Government that there was wrongful calculation of category-wise
vacancies in the earlier requisition and, therefore, the earlier
requisition was required to be revised - State Government by order
dated 20.08.2014, re-worked the vacancies for different
categories of persons and sent the revised requisition for the
vacancies for different categories to UP Public Service
Commission (UPPSC) after adjustment of diploma holders against
'general category' - Based on revised requisition, UPPSC declared
the result of written examination, wherein appellants as well as
private respondents were declared successful - Thereafter, UPPSC
issued O.M. dated 12.10.2014 specifically mentioning the number
of vacancies to be filled up in various categories in
consonance with order dated 20.07.2014 - Successful candidates
appeared in interview on 27.10.2014 and finally result of select list
candidates was declared on 21.05.2015 - Private respondents did
not qualify - Unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions before
High Court challenging the validity of O.M. 12.10.2014 and the
result declared on 21.05.2015 and praying for quashing the same
and for preparation of result afresh without giving effect to O.M.
12.10.2014 - The impugned result was also assailed on the ground
that it contravened s.3(1) of UP Reservation Act, 1994 and r.15(3)
of UP Subordinate Agriculture Services Rules, 1993 and also that
the percentage of reservation to SC/ST and OBC categories crossed
the upper limit of 50% - Held: Revised requisition dated 20.8.2014
and OM dated 12.10.2014 was valid since it was only intended to
[2019] 12 S.C.R. 1071
 1071
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1072
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
rectify wrongful calculation of number of vacancies in different
categories and to comply with requisite percentage of quota of
reservation in different categories as per 1994 Act - By virtue of
r.15 and r.6 of UP Subordinate Agriculture Services Rules, 1993
(Agriculture Service Rules, 1993), the Recruitment Authority is
empowered to rectify the wrongful calculation and make a revised
requisition of number of vacancies in different categories which is
in accordance with the provisions of UP Reservation Act, 1994 -
High Court was not right in saying that the diploma holders ought
not to have been absorbed against the "General category" so as to
alter the advertised number of posts against the "General category"
- Absorption of diploma holders were required to be done only
against the "General quota" - Revising the number of vacancies in
different categories to satisfy reservation quota scheme as per UP
Reservation Act, 1994 would not amount to changing the rules of
the game after the commencement of the selection process - Having
participated in the interview and when they failed in the final
selection, it was not open to the private respondents/intervenors to
turn around and challenge the revised notification dated 12.10.2014
and the final select list dated 21.05.2015 - The filling up of the
unfilled horizontal reservation by the candidates from the
respective vertical reservation is in accordance with the policy of
the government and the same cannot be faulted with - Uttar Pradesh
Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994.
Service law: Selection process - Reservation scheme -
Appointment letter not issued to 906 candidates - Plea to exercise
power under Art.142 of the Constitution of India - The 906
candidates were not issued the appointment orders in order to keep
the appointment within the permissible percentage of reservation
as per UP Reservation Act, 1994 - These 906 candida

## Text

_Characters 0–39,523 of 122,477. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39523 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1071
 ANUPAL SINGH AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF U.P THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No.4815 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2019
 [R. BANUMATHI AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Service Law: Selection process - Reservation policy - Post
of Technical Assistant - Appellants as well as private respondents
applied for and appeared in the written examination held in 2014 -
As per U.P. Reservation Act, specific percentages of vacancies were
reserved for different categories - It was brought to notice of State
Government that there was wrongful calculation of category-wise
vacancies in the earlier requisition and, therefore, the earlier
requisition was required to be revised - State Government by order
dated 20.08.2014, re-worked the vacancies for different
categories of persons and sent the revised requisition for the
vacancies for different categories to UP Public Service
Commission (UPPSC) after adjustment of diploma holders against
'general category' - Based on revised requisition, UPPSC declared
the result of written examination, wherein appellants as well as
private respondents were declared successful - Thereafter, UPPSC
issued O.M. dated 12.10.2014 specifically mentioning the number
of vacancies to be filled up in various categories in
consonance with order dated 20.07.2014 - Successful candidates
appeared in interview on 27.10.2014 and finally result of select list
candidates was declared on 21.05.2015 - Private respondents did
not qualify - Unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions before
High Court challenging the validity of O.M. 12.10.2014 and the
result declared on 21.05.2015 and praying for quashing the same
and for preparation of result afresh without giving effect to O.M.
12.10.2014 - The impugned result was also assailed on the ground
that it contravened s.3(1) of UP Reservation Act, 1994 and r.15(3)
of UP Subordinate Agriculture Services Rules, 1993 and also that
the percentage of reservation to SC/ST and OBC categories crossed
the upper limit of 50% - Held: Revised requisition dated 20.8.2014
and OM dated 12.10.2014 was valid since it was only intended to
[2019] 12 S.C.R. 1071
 1071
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1072
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
rectify wrongful calculation of number of vacancies in different
categories and to comply with requisite percentage of quota of
reservation in different categories as per 1994 Act - By virtue of
r.15 and r.6 of UP Subordinate Agriculture Services Rules, 1993
(Agriculture Service Rules, 1993), the Recruitment Authority is
empowered to rectify the wrongful calculation and make a revised
requisition of number of vacancies in different categories which is
in accordance with the provisions of UP Reservation Act, 1994 -
High Court was not right in saying that the diploma holders ought
not to have been absorbed against the "General category" so as to
alter the advertised number of posts against the "General category"
- Absorption of diploma holders were required to be done only
against the "General quota" - Revising the number of vacancies in
different categories to satisfy reservation quota scheme as per UP
Reservation Act, 1994 would not amount to changing the rules of
the game after the commencement of the selection process - Having
participated in the interview and when they failed in the final
selection, it was not open to the private respondents/intervenors to
turn around and challenge the revised notification dated 12.10.2014
and the final select list dated 21.05.2015 - The filling up of the
unfilled horizontal reservation by the candidates from the
respective vertical reservation is in accordance with the policy of
the government and the same cannot be faulted with - Uttar Pradesh
Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994.
Service law: Selection process - Reservation scheme -
Appointment letter not issued to 906 candidates - Plea to exercise
power under Art.142 of the Constitution of India - The 906
candidates were not issued the appointment orders in order to keep
the appointment within the permissible percentage of reservation
as per UP Reservation Act, 1994 - These 906 candidates who were
left out and were not issued appointment orders were ranked lower
in the merit list than the last selected candidate in their respective
category under the reservation limit as identified by the Personnel
Department, therefore appointment orders were not issued to them
- This cannot be said to be arbitrariness or discrimination as
selection of candidates was on the basis of the merit list -
Therefore, power under Art.142 of the Constitution of India cannot
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1073
be exercised to issue direction to the State to issue appointment
orders to 906 candidates - Constitution of India - Art.142.
Service law: Selection process - It is a settled law that a
person having consciously participated in the interview cannot turn
around and challenge the selection process - Having appeared in
the interview without any demur or protest, it is not open to the
candidates to challenge the selection process on the ground that
there was modification in the number of vacancies in different
categories and they are estopped by the principle of estoppel from
challenging the same - Doctrine of estoppel.
Service law: Selection process - It is fairly well-settled that
the selected candidates do not have any indefeasible right to be
appointed - Merely because the names of candidates were included
in the provisional select list, they do not acquire any indefeasible
right to be appointed.
Doctrines/Principles: Doctrine of res judicata - Batch of writ
petitions disposed of by High Court by common judgment containing
common operative portion of judgment - Appeal filed in few writ
petitions - Decision of Supreme Court - Whether judgment rendered
in other writ petitions by High Court having not been challenged,
have attained finality and operate as res judicata - Held: The
decision of Supreme Court is binding on all the writ petitioners
before High Court even though they were not parties in the appeal
before the Supreme Court.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:
1. Revised requisition dated 20.08.2014 and Office
Memorandum dated 12.10.2014 notifying revised vacancies in
different categories in consonance with the provisions of UP
Reservation Act, 1994 and UP Subordinate Agriculture Service
Rules, 1993
1.1 On the basis of the government order dated 20.08.2014,
the Department of Agriculture sent the revised requisition to
the UP Public Service Commission (UPPSC). The declaration of
result of the written examination was issued based on the revised
requisition of the posts. The UPPSC acted on the revised
ANUPAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P THR. PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, PERSONNEL DEPTT.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1074
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
requisition of the Government dated 20.08.2014. Before the
candidates were called for interview, Office Memorandum dated
12.10.2014 was issued by the UPPSC revising the number of
vacancies for different categories. The UPPSC has thus not
travelled beyond the requisition sent by the Government. [Para
24, 25] [1096-F; 1097-B-C]
1.2 The Agriculture Service Rules, 1993 clearly stipulate
that it is for the Recruitment Authority to determine the number
of vacancies to be filled during the year and would also determine
the number of vacancies for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and other category candidates under Rule 6. On noticing that
there was wrongful calculation of the category-wise vacancy, the
Recruitment Authority is empowered to rectify the wrongful
calculation and make a revised requisition which is in accordance
with the provisions of UP Reservation Act, 1994 and Agriculture
Service Rules, 1993. [Para 29] [1099-E-F]
R.K. Sabharwal and Others v. State of Punjab and
Others (1995) 2 SCC 745 : [1995] 2 SCR 35
- relied on.
1.3 Revising the number of vacancies in OBC category as
2030 does not violate the right of the General category candidates because the State Legislature has enacted the Reservation Act No.4 of 1994 providing for reservation, keeping in mind
the parameters of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. By
revising requisition, the State has endeavoured to achieve the
object of the reservation by working out the vacancy for selection of the posts in question without causing any prejudice to the
General category candidates. The revised requisition so made
was within the purview of the competency of the State in order to
achieve the object of the UP Reservation Act, 1994. Moreover,
the total number of vacancies have not been changed or modified. [Para 32] [1101-B-C]
1.4 The category-wise vacancy position was changed after
a meeting of all concerned was held i.e. representatives of the
Karmik Department as well as of representatives of the
Administrative Department and it was found that a wrong
calculation of category-wise vacancy had been sent earlier. If the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1075
original requisition dated 22.10.2013 was to be retained, it would
have resulted in anomalies of the category-wise posts thereby
contravening the provisions of the UP Reservation Act, 1994.
Hence, the revised requisition was sent on 20.08.2014 from the
Administrative Department to the Director, Agriculture who in
turn communicated the same to the UPPSC. By the revised
requisition of vacancies for various categories, there is no
violation of any rules; on the other hand, it is only to rectify the
calculation of vacancies in different categories and to comply with
the requisite quota of reservation in different categories as per
UP Reservation Act, 1994. This aspect was not properly
appreciated by the High Court. [Para 34] [1101-F-H]
2. Absorption of the Diploma Holders
The earlier requisition was sent showing only 566 vacancies
against the OBC quota, while in fact, it should have been 2030,
as all the diploma holders were appointed against the General
quota and they have not been appointed against the OBC quota.
At the time of absorption of the diploma holders in the year 1998,
there was no provision for reservation for Backward Class
category in the concerned department; only by U.P. Reservation
(Amendment) Act, 2002, the reservation was extended to the
concerned department and therefore, the appointees/diploma
holders have to be considered only against the "general quota"
candidates. As seen from the affidavit filed by the Deputy Director,
Agriculture (Training), the diploma holders were not required to
be counted against OBC quota; by a wrongful calculation, they
have been adjusted against the OBC quota which is not
permissible in law as reservation cannot be granted
retrospectively. By the revised requisition, the Government
sought to rectify this mistake which resulted in alteration in
number of vacancies available against certain categories. Such
rectification of mistake by Government cannot be faulted nor can
this be a ground for recalling the advertisement in question and
issuing a fresh one. The variation in number of vacancies against
"General quota" was only because of the absorption of the diploma
holders against the "General quota" and rectifying the mistake
of adjustment against "OBC vacancies". [Paras 37, 38]
[1102-E-F; 1103-D-G]
ANUPAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P THR. PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, PERSONNEL DEPTT.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1076
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
3. O.M. dated 12.10.2014 revising the vacancies categorywise - whether amounts to changing the rules of the game after
the commencement of the selection
3.1 In the instant case, only wrongful calculation in the
number of vacancies in different categories had been corrected
in order to satisfy the percentage of reservation against various
categories as per the provisions of UP Reservation Act, 1994.
Such correction cannot be said to changing the rules or basis of
selection. The eligibility criteria was not changed. The diploma
holders were wrongly counted against the vacancies in OBC
category; while they could not have been counted against OBC
category and while doing so, a wrongful calculation had been
arrived and the same has to be corrected by counting the diploma
holders against the general category. [Paras 42, 44] [1105-D-E;
1106-D-E]
K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another
(2008) 3 SCC 512 : [2008] 2 SCR 1025 ; Hemani
Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC 11 :
[2008] 5 SCR 1066 - distinguished.
3.2 Instruction No.7 in the advertisement dated 22.10.2013
stipulated that the number of vacancies may increase or decrease.
Agriculture Service Rules, 1993 also clearly stipulated the
prerogative of the government to determine the number of
vacancies in accordance with the rules. The writ petitioners who
are unsuccessful candidates have not demonstrated as to how
they were prejudicially affected by the change in number of
vacancies against "General category" and "OBC category".
Notification by the UPPSC dated 12.10.2014 is based upon the
revised requisition of the vacancies by the order of the
Administrative Department dated 20.08.2014. This would not
amount to changing the rules of the game after the selection
process had commenced nor it had affected the selection process
by changing the eligibility criteria. [Paras 45, 48, 49] [1108-B-D]
Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court
and Others (2013) 4 SCC 540 - relied on.
4. Having participated in the interview, the private
respondents cannot challenge the Office Memorandum dated
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1077
12.10.2014 and the selection.
It is a settled law that a person having consciously
participated in the interview cannot turn around and challenge
the selection process. The candidates who appeared in the
interview were well aware about the modification/revision in
number of vacancies of Technical Assistants in different
categories. The private respondents/intervening applicants have
appeared in the interview with their eyes wide open regarding
the modified vacancies to be filled up in various categories of the
posts. Having appeared in the interview without any demur or
protest, it is not open to the candidates to challenge the selection
process on the ground that there was modification in the number
of vacancies in different categories and they are estopped by the
principle of estoppel from challenging the same. [Paras 50, 54]
[1108-E-F; 1110-G-H; 1111-A]
5.Unfilled vacancies of Horizontal Reservation filled by
candidates of vertical reservation Contention of the private
respondents is that as per the statutory requirement, the
horizontal reserved vacancies were unfilled and those unfilled
vacancies of horizontal category were filled by vertical reservation
candidates/other category candidates, which is in violation of the
statutory provisions vitiating the selection process. The UP Public
Service Commission furnished the details as to the number of
vacancies reserved for horizontal category and the number of
candidates found suitable and placed in the respective categories.
On behalf of UP Public Service Commission, it was submitted
that one of the policies of the State Government regarding
horizontal reservation is that, if the suitable candidates for filling
the vacancies reserved for such posts of horizontal reservation
are not available and the same are not carried forward; they are
filled up by other suitable candidates from amongst the candidates
belonging to vertically reserved categories according to their
merit. It was submitted that unfilled horizontal reservation
vacancies were thus filled up by suitable candidates of respective
vertical categories according to their merit which is as per the
policy of the government. The High Court was not right in finding
fault with the filling up of vacancies reserved for horizontal
reservation with other candidates of respective vertical
reservation. [Para 56] [1111-D-E; 1112-A-C]
ANUPAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P THR. PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, PERSONNEL DEPTT.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1078
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
Madan Lal and Others v. State of J&K and Others
(1995) 3 SCC 486 : [1995] 1 SCR 908; K.H. Siraj v.
High Court of Kerala and Others (2006) 6 SCC 395:
[2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 790; Union of India and Others
v. S. Vinodh Kumar and Others (2007) 8 SCC 100 :
[2007] 10 SCR 41; Sadananda Halo and Others v.
Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Others (2008) 4 SCC 619:
[2008] 3 SCR 497 - relied on.
6. Plea of res judicata
6.1 The respondents have sought to invoke the principles
of res judicata by contending that the common judgment dated
10.02.2017 passed by the High Court involved eighty-eight
petitions which were allowed with the direction specified in the
impugned judgment. Out of twenty-one appeals filed before this
Court, the judgment of the High Court passed in six writ petitions
only has been challenged; other matters have not been
challenged either by the State or by the appellants. It was
contended that when the appellants have not challenged the
common judgment rendered in all the eighty-eight writ petitions
and in the present appeals, only the judgment rendered in WritC No.34196 of 2015 and few other writ petitions are challenged,
the judgment rendered in other writ petitions having not been
challenged, have attained finality and thus, operate as res judicata.
The
above
contention
does
not
merit
acceptance.
[Paras 57, 58] [1112-D-G; 1113-A]
6.2 In the instant case, before the High Court, the
contentions raised were the same and common arguments were
advanced. The High Court dealt with the batch of writ petitions
and disposed all of them by common judgment. Since it is a
common judgment with common reasonings, the present batch
of appeals would not result in any inconsistent decree or order
as all of them arise out of the common judgment containing
common operative portion of the judgment. Thus, submission is
liable to be rejected. In M/s Shenoy case, a number of writ
petitions were allowed by the High Court. However, the State
chose to file appeal only in one case which came to be allowed by
the Supreme Court in the said case. In that fact situation, this
Court took the view that the decision of this Court was binding
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1079
on all the writ petitioners before the High Court even though
they were not the respondents in the appeal before the Supreme
Court. [Paras 60, 61] [1113-F-H; 1114-A-B]
M/s Shenoy and Co., Represented by its partner Bele
Srinivasa Rao Street, Bangalore and Others v. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle II, Bangalore and Others
(1985) 2 SCC 512 : [1985] 3 SCR 659 ; Director of
Settlements, A.P. and Others v. M.R. Apparao and Another (2002) 4 SCC 638 : [2002] 2 SCR 661; Fida
Hussain and Others v. Moradabad Development Authority and Another (2011) 12 SCC 615 : [2011] 9 SCR
290 - relied on.
6.3 Before the High Court in several writ petitions,
unsuccessful candidates challenged the revised notification dated
12.10.2014 and also the result dated 21.05.2015 published on
22.05.2015. All the writ petitions were disposed of by the common
judgment. Thus, the contentious issues raised by the parties stood
determined on the same set of facts and on the same reasonings.
There is no merit in the contention that the judgment passed by
this Court would bind only the parties in Writ-C No.34196 of
2015 and that the other judgments passed by the High Court
would stand and operate as res judicata. As held in M/s Shenoy
and Co. and other judgments, to do so is to ignore the binding
nature of a judgment of this Court under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India. [Para 63] [1115-F-H]
7. Re: Contention - Appointment letters not issued to 906
candidates and plea to exercise power under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India:
7.1 After the interview was completed, the UPPSC has
selected 6599 candidates and the category-wise details of the
candidates so recommended by the Commission. The UPPSC
has withheld the result of 29 candidates. The recommendation
so made by the UPPSC was in excess of the permissible
percentage of reservation as per UP Reservation Act, 1994. In
fact, this was one of the grounds of challenge in the writ petition
to assail the select list. In the counter filed by the Principal
Secretary, Government of UP, it is stated that change in the
ANUPAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P THR. PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, PERSONNEL DEPTT.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1080
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
category-wise vacancies was further scrutinised in terms of Uttar
Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994. It
was found that a harmonious construction of its various sections
was needed to be taken. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that
the total of 6628 vacancies was exceeding the demarcated
percentage. Thereafter, the application of horizontal reservation
for dependents of Freedom Fighters, Ex-Servicemen, Disabled
persons and Women was proposed. [Paras 66, 67] [1116-H; 1117A, C-E; 1118-A]
7.2 Writ Petition No.62112/2015 was filed by few of the
successful candidates for issuance of appointment letter and the
High Court vide its order dated 15.12.2015 directed the official
respondents to issue appointment order. The High Court further
clarified that any such appointment made as well as the select list
shall abide by any order which may be passed by the Division
Bench. Pursuant to the said order, the Chief Secretary,
Government of UP by its letter dated 22.12.2015 gave directions
to the Department that appointment orders be issued to the
selected candidates and that the appointment should abide by
the final decision of the court. Accordingly, the appointment
orders were issued to the selected candidates on 30.01.2016.
The appointments were made subject to the outcome of the writ
petition. Thus, total of 5669 candidates were issued appointment
orders; the appointment orders were withheld for 24 candidates
as the documents were withheld by UP Public Service
Commission. [Para 68] [1118-C-D, G-H]
7.3 The 906 candidates who were left out and were not
issued appointment orders were ranked lower in the merit list
than the last selected candidate in their respective category under
the reservation limit as identified by the Personnel Department,
therefore appointment orders were not issued to them. This
cannot be said to be arbitrariness or discrimination as selection
of candidates was on the basis of the merit list. Further, the
revised requisition dated 20.08.2014, on the basis of which the
impugned office memorandum was issued itself was a case of
excessive requisition, that is, beyond the permissible limits set
out by the UP Reservation Act, 1994. The direction to
accommodate the surplus candidates cannot be passed as that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1081
would be in excess of the permissible limit as prescribed by the
Act and would be in violation of prescribed limits of reservation
as per the UP Reservation Act, 1994. In exercise of power under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, if direction is issued to
appoint 906 candidates, it will be crossing the limits of 50%
reservation which would be violation of the constitutional
provisions and the UP Reservation Act, 1994. [Paras 69, 70] [1119B, C-E]
7.4 It is fairly well-settled that the selected candidates do
not have any indefeasible right to be appointed. Merely because
the names of candidates were included in the provisional select
list, they do not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed.
Merely because UPPSC has recommended the names of 906
candidates, they do not acquire any indefeasible right for being
appointed. The present vacancies i.e. 4838 and the available
vacancies i.e. 2779 are the future vacancies which are to be filled
up by a fresh advertisement and by participation of all the eligible
candidates including the 906 candidates and other unsuccessful
candidates. 2779 vacancies existing as on date, which are the
vacancies as on date i.e. in 2019 cannot be filled up by the
candidates who got selected pursuant to the advertisement in
2013-2014. [Paras 71, 75] [1119-G-H; 1120-A; 1121-E-F]
State of Bihar and Others v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra
(2006) 12 SCC 561 : [2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 650 -
relied on.
Union of India and Others v. Permanand Singh (1999)
SCC (L&S) 625; D.M. Premkumari v. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore Division and Others (2009) 12 SCC
267 : [2009] 1 SCR 1094 - referred to
8. Article 142 of the Constitution of India confers wide
power upon the Supreme Court to do complete justice between
the parties. Though the powers conferred on the Supreme Court
by Article 142 are very wide, the same cannot be exercised to
pass an order inconsistent with express statutory provisions of
substantive law. In the case in hand, as per the provisions of
Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994,
specific percentages of vacancies have been reserved for different
ANUPAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P THR. PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, PERSONNEL DEPTT.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1082
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
categories. In exercise of power under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, no direction can be issued to the State of
UP to issue appointment orders to the 906 candidates.
[Para 76] [1121-G; 1122-B-D]
Ramji Veerji Patel and Others v. Revenue Divisional
Officer and Others (2011) 10 SCC 643 : [2011] 14 SCR
821; Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India
and Another (1998) 4 SCC 409 : [1998] 2 SCR 795 -
relied on
Union of India and Others v. O. Chakradhar (2002) 3
SCC 146 : [2002] 1 SCR 1091; Poonam v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others (2016) 2 SCC 779 : [2015]
14 SCR 565 ; Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple and
Another v. Meenakashi Ammal and Others (2015) 3 SCC
624 : [2014] 12 SCR 845 ; N.T. Devin Katti and Others
v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Others
(1990) 3 SCC 157 : [1990] 2 SCR 239 ; Government
of India through Secretary and Another v. Ravi Prakash
Gupta and Another (2010) 7 SCC 626 : [2010] 7 SCR
851; Madan Mohan Sharma and Another v. State of
Rajasthan and Others (2008) 3 SCC 724 : [2008] 3
SCR 232 ; C. Channabasavaih v. State of Mysore AIR
1965 SC 1293 : [1965] SCR 360 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 12 SCR 845
 referred to
Para 15
[1990] 2 SCR 239
 referred to
Para 16
[2010] 7 SCR 851
 referred to
Para 16
[1995] 2 SCR 35
 relied on
Para 30
[2008] 3 SCR 232
 referred to
Para 39
(2013) 4 SCC 540
 referred to
Para 43
[1965] SCR 360
 referred to
Para 43
[2008] 2 SCR 1025
 distinguished
Para 44
[2008] 5 SCR 1066
 distinguished
Para 44
[1995] 1 SCR 908
 relied on
Para 51
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1083
[2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 790
relied on
Para 52
[2007] 10 SCR 41
relied on
Para 53
[2008] 3 SCR 497
relied on
Para 53
[1985] 3 SCR 659
relied on
Para 61
[2002] 2 SCR 661
relied on
Para 62
[2011] 9 SCR 290
relied on
Para 62
[2002] 1 SCR 1091
referred to
Para 64
[2015] 14 SCR 565
referred to
Para 65
[2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 650
relied on
Para 71
(1999) SCC (L&S) 625
referred to
Para 74
[2009] 1 SCR 1094
referred to
Para 74
[2011] 14 SCR 821
relied on
Para 76
[1998] 2 SCR 795
relied on
Para 76
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.4815 of
2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.02.2017 by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No. 34196 of 2015
With
Civil Appeal Nos.4817/2019, 4816/2019, 4819/2019,
4818/2019, 4821/2019, 4820/2019, 4830/2019, 4829/2019, 4833/2019,
4825/2019, 4827/2019, 4834/2019, 4828/2019, 4824/2019, 4835/2019,
4822-23/2019, 4836/2019, 4826/2019, 4832/2019 and 4831/2019
P.S. Patwalia, M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Guru Krishna Kumar,
Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija,Sr.Advs., Pradeep
Kumar Yadav, Ms. Harshika Verma, Akchhay Chadha, Sanjeev Malhotra,
G.S. Mani, Nitin Kumar, G.D. Ahmed, G. Balaji, Ms. Shiva Vijaya Kumar,
Divyanshu, Suyash Srivastva, Modhumay Misra, Satyendra Kumar
Mishra, Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, Prashant Shukla, Praveen Gaur,
Priyanshu Agarwal, Ms. Aadiya Mishra, A. Subba Rao, Yatish Mohan,
Dr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, Mehul M. Gupta, Abhishek Kumar Saroj, R.
P. Gupta, Yatish Mohan, Ms. Vinita Y. Mohan, Ms. Manju Jetley, Alok
ANUPAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P THR. PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, PERSONNEL DEPTT.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1084
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
Singh, Dr. Amarendra Pratap Yadav, Abhishek Singh and Ms. Manju
Sharma Jetley, Advs. for the Appellants.
S.R. Singh,Sr.Adv. Adarsh Upadhyay, Ms. Sunita Pandit, Krishna
Kumar Yadav, Alok Mishra, Raghvendra Upadhyay, Ms. Purnima Jain,
Ajay Kumar, Rajesh Goyal, Alok Mishra, Amarendra Pratap Yadav,
Abhishek Singh, Ms. Khushboo Vinodray Malkan, Anil Nauriya,
Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Ms. Ipsita Behura, K. Parameshwar, M.V.
Mukunda, Sunil Kumar Singh, Amit Kumar Srivastava, Hariom Sharan
Singh, Ms. Sofia Begum, Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, Sandeep Kr. Dwivedi,
Awadhish Kumar, Pradeep Kr. Dwivedi, Satyam Pandey, Ms. Antaryami
Upadhyay, Rutwik Panda, Abhishek Upadhyay, Ms. Mridula Ray
Bharadwaj, Binay Kumar Jain, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Bijender Singh
Choudhry, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Shrish Kumar Misra, Ankit Yadav,
Ms. Deepika Mishra, Bimlesh Pandey, M/s.Sheenu Chauhan, Ajay
Kumar Singh, Dharm Singh, Karunakar Mahalik, Ms. Ruchira Goel,
Abhishek Raj, Nilendra Pratap Singh, Shailendra Pratap Singh, Ms. Neha
Singh, Prithvi Pal, Ms. Rekha Rani Dey, Siddharth Kumar, Ms. Divya
Roy, Satyajeet Kumar, Udayaditya Banerjee, Susheel Tomar, Sanjeev
Malhotra, Balraj Dewan, Dinesh Kr. Tiwary, Ms. Anita Pandey, Ms.
Rajmala Dohare, Ms. Shama Sharma, Chandan Kr., Santosh Kumar
Tripathi, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Ms. Anita Tripathi, Ms. Shweta Yadav,
Ankur Yadav, Anil Kaushik, Anurag Singh, Anil Kumar Mishra, Bipin
Bihari Singh, Alok Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
 R. BANUMATHI, J.
1 These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 10.02.2017 in
Writ-C No.34196 of 2015 and batch matters passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in and by which the High Court while upholding the result of written examination for the post of Technical AssistantGroup-C Agriculture Department, quashed selection process subsequent
to the written examination and directed the Principal Secretary, State of
U.P. to send requisition to the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission
on the basis of quantifiable data and cadre strength as well as actual
persons working in different categories so that the interview may be
conducted afresh and complete the selection.
2. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as under:-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1085
The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission issued an
advertisement No.A-5, E-1/2013 dated 22.10.2013 inviting applications
for 6628 vacancies of Subordinate Agriculture Services, Cadre-lll
(Technical Assistant Group-C). In the said advertisement for the total
requisitioned 6628 vacancies, category-wise vacancies are as under:-
Advertisement Number Vacancies in Subordinate Agriculture
Services, Cadre-III (Technical Assistant Group-C)
The appellants as well as the private respondents applied for and
appeared in the written examination held on 30.03.2014. As per the Uttar
Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (for short "UP
Reservation Act, 1994"), specific percentages of vacancies have been
reserved for different categories viz., (a) in the case of Scheduled Castes
- 21% (b) in the case of Scheduled Tribes - 2% and (c) in the case of
OBC-27%. It was brought to the notice of the State Government that
there was wrongful calculation of category-wise vacancies in the earlier
requisition and therefore, the earlier requisition was required to be revised.
After a detailed inquiry as to the cadre strength of Technical Assistant -
Group C and the actual working strength of persons in different
categories, it was found that initially the number of requisitioned candidates
in the category of General/Unreserved and OBC were wrongly
calculated. It was noticed that the diploma holders who were required to
be appointed against "Unreserved quota"; but were wrongly appointed
against the "OBC quota" and the same was to be rectified. According
to the State, after adjustment of diploma holders against "General
Category" and in order to fulfill the requirements of constitutional and

Advertisement Number
Vacancies in Subordinate Agriculture Services, Cadre-III
(Technical Assistant Group-C)

Advt. No. A-5, E-1/2013 dt.
22.10.2013

Total vacancies: 6628
Unreserved

3616
SC

2211
ST

235
OBC

566

Horizontal reservation in original advertisement is as under:-

Women
Handicapped
Dependents of Freedom Fighter
Ex-servicemen
1325
253
132
331

ANUPAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P THR. PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, PERSONNEL DEPTT. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1086
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
statutory mandate of reservation, the State Government has reworked
the vacancies for different categories of persons and sent the revised
requisition for the vacancies for different categories. The State
Government after taking opinion of the Department of Personnel vide
its order dated 20.08.2014 approved the revised vacancies for different
categories of persons in accordance with the applicable reservation rules
and accordingly, revised the requisition. Based on the said order dated
20.08.2014, Department of Agriculture vide its letter No.AC/101 dated
20.08.2014 sent the revised requisition for 6628 posts to the UP Public
Service Commission as under:-
Horizontal reservation in amended requisition is as under:
Based upon the above revised requisition, on 15.09.2014, UP Public
Service Commission declared the result of the written examination
wherein, both the appellants as well as the private respondents were
declared successful. After declaration of the result of written examination,
the UP Public Service Commission issued an Office Memorandum dated
12.10.2014 notifying 2515 posts for Unreserved/General category; 1882
posts for SC category; 201 posts for ST category and 2030 posts for
OBC category in consonance with the government order dated
20.08.2014. The successful candidates who cleared the written
examination appeared for interview held from 27.10.2014 onwards.
Finally, when the result of select list candidates was declared on
21.05.2015, the private respondents did not qualify.
3. Number of writ petitions came to be filed before the High Court
by the unsuccessful candidates against respondents No.1 to 4 and by
impleading some of the successful candidates assailing the validity of
Advertisement Number
Vacancies in Subordinate Agriculture Services, Cadre-III
(Technical Assistant Group-C)
Government Order No.941/12-4-141992/2014 dt. 20.08.2014
Total vacancies: 6628

Unreserved

2515

SC

1882

ST

201

OBC

2030

Women
Handicapped
Dependents of Freedom Fighter
Ex-servicemen
1325
252
132
330
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1087
the Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2014 and the result declared on
21.05.2015 praying that they be quashed. They further prayed for direction
to respondents No.1 to 4 to prepare the result afresh without giving
effect to Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2014. It was contended that
change in the number of vacancies in different categories is illegal and
the same amounts to changing the rules of the game in the middle of the
selection process. The impugned result was also assailed on the ground
that it is in contravention to Section 3(1) of UP Reservation Act, 1994
and Rule 15(3) of UP Subordinate Agriculture Services Rules, 1993
(Agriculture Service Rules, 1993) and that the percentage of reservation
to SC/ST and OBC categories crossed the upper limit of 50%.
4. After referring to decisions on the aspect of reservation, vide
the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the writ petitions inter
alia holding as under:-
 The entire maneuvering in the instant case has taken place
in the garb of diploma holders wherein, 1749 diploma holders
in the department were adjusted/regularized in the year 1998.
Even at the time of their regularization, their heads were
counted and the same is reflected from their regularization
orders and once their heads were already counted qua their
respective categories and reserved category of persons
especially OBC adequately represented, there was no
occasion for putting all the diploma holders against the open
category.
 After the declaration of result of written examination on
15.09.2014, changing the number of vacancies for different
categories amounts to violation of Rule 15(3) of Agriculture
Service Rules, 1993 during the pendency of the advertisement
and thus, depriving 3303 general category candidates even to
appear in the interview and allowing 4392 more candidates
of OBC category to appear for interview by bringing them in
the zone of consideration for the selection, amounts to changing
the rule of the game during the process of selection.
 The Commission declared the final result on 21.05.2015
wherein, 88% candidates belonging to reserved categories
have been shown to be selected whereas, only 12%
candidates under open category have been selected and the
ANUPAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P THR. PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, PERSONNEL DEPTT. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1088
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
entire selection is in contravention to Section 3(1) of UP
Reservation Act, 1994 and the Rule 15(3) of the Agriculture
Service Rules, 1993.
On the above findings and other reasonings, the High court
allowed the writ petitions by holding that subsequent to the declaration
of the result of written examination, the entire selection is vitiated and as
such, the same cannot be sustained. Placing reliance upon Union of
India and Others v. O. Chakradhar(2002) 3 SCC 146, the High
Court held that when the court comes to the conclusion that the
selection is tainted, there is no necessity to serve individual notices and
as such, the entire selection can be cancelled. The High Court issued a
direction to the Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. to send a fresh
requisition to the UP Public Service Commission on the basis of
quantifiable data, existing strength of cadre as well as the actual persons
working in different categories forthwith so that interview be conducted
at the earliest and that the entire exercise be completed within four
months.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellants who
are the selected candidates and have already joined their respective
posts have filed these appeals before this Court. Vide order dated
03.03.2017, this Court ordered to maintain status-quo as existing on the
said date.
6. The batch of appeals were heard at length and the hearing
stretched over number of dates. We have heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia,
learned Senior counsel, Mr. M. Karpaga Vinayagam learned Senior
counsel, Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned Senior counsel, Ms.
Mahalakshmi Pavani, learned Senior counsel, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija,
learned Senior counsel, Mr. Mehul M. Gupta, learned counsel and Mr.
A. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.
We have heard Mr. S.R. Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent-State. We have also heard Mr. Alok Mishra, learned
counsel, Mr. K. Parmeshwar, learned counsel, Mr. Anil Nauriya, learned
counsel, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, learned counsel and Mr. Dinesh Kumar
Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants-respondents.
Contentions of the appellants
7. Mr. P.S.