Case Note & Summary
The dispute originated from a selection process for 35 posts of Deputy Collector initiated by the U.P. Public Service Commission through a Combined State Service Examination in 1985. Two candidates did not join their posts, leaving vacancies. The Commission recommended two other candidates, including Chunni Lal, for appointment. However, Ajay Shankar Pandey approached the High Court, which directed the Commission to recommend his name instead. The Commission consequently withdrew its recommendation for Chunni Lal. Chunni Lal then filed a writ petition challenging Pandey's continuance and made a representation, which the State rejected. The High Court quashed this rejection order and directed the State to reconsider Chunni Lal's appointment based on a subsequent Commission recommendation, while clarifying that Pandey's appointment should not be disturbed. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were whether the High Court could direct appointment of two persons to a single post and whether the judgment remained implementable given Chunni Lal's subsequent retirement. The State argued that two persons cannot be appointed to one post and that Chunni Lal had retired, making the judgment infructuous. The Supreme Court analyzed that the High Court's direction was unsustainable as it effectively sought to appoint two persons to a single post, which was impermissible. The Court also noted that during the appeal's pendency, Chunni Lal had retired as Deputy Transport Commissioner on 31.08.2019, rendering the High Court's direction incapable of implementation. The Court held that the impugned judgment deserved to be quashed both on merits and due to changed circumstances. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's judgment, and set aside the order, with no costs awarded.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Public Service Appointments - Single Post Occupancy - Not mentioned - High Court directed State to appoint respondent No.1 to post of Deputy Collector based on subsequent Public Service Commission recommendation while not disturbing appointment of respondent No.2 - Supreme Court held two persons cannot be appointed to single post and such direction was unsustainable - Impugned judgment quashed and set aside (Paras 5-6) B) Civil Procedure - Implementation of Court Orders - Practical Feasibility - Not mentioned - During pendency of appeal, respondent No.1 retired as Deputy Transport Commissioner on 31.08.2019 - Supreme Court found impugned judgment not capable of implementation as no purpose served by appointing retired person - Appeal allowed on this ground as well (Paras 5,7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could direct the State to appoint two persons to a single post of Deputy Collector and whether the impugned judgment remained capable of implementation given subsequent retirement of the petitioner
Final Decision
Appeal allowed, impugned judgment and order dated 16.07.2014 passed by High Court in Writ Petition No.1181(S/B) of 1996 quashed and set aside, no order as to costs
Law Points
- Appointment to single post cannot be granted to two persons
- Implementation of court orders must be practically feasible
- Superannuation renders appointment infructuous
