Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dr. Manoj Kumar Rawat, was a waitlisted candidate for the post of Principal in PG and UG non-Government Aided Colleges in Uttar Pradesh. He was initially recommended for appointment to a college but later sought a change in posting to Meerut College under Section 13(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980. The respondent no. 6, the officiating Principal of Meerut College, challenged the orders recommending the appellant to Meerut College. The learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the orders dated 13.12.2023, 12.01.2024, and 15.01.2024. The Division Bench confirmed this decision. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court framed the issue of whether Section 13(4) permits a fresh recommendation for a waitlisted candidate to a different college. The Court held that Section 13(4) does permit such a fresh recommendation, as it is designed to fill vacancies efficiently and does not restrict the candidate to the original recommendation. The Court distinguished the precedent in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, noting that it involved a different statutory scheme. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent no. 6.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Waitlisted Candidate - Section 13(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 - The issue was whether a waitlisted candidate, already recommended for appointment to one college, could be recommended afresh to a different college under Section 13(4) of the old Act. The Supreme Court held that Section 13(4) permits the Commission to make a fresh recommendation for a waitlisted candidate to a different college, as the provision is intended to fill vacancies efficiently and does not restrict the candidate to the original recommendation. The Court distinguished Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, noting that the case involved a different statutory scheme. (Paras 3-5) B) Service Law - Precedent - Distinguishing - Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, (1998) 3 SCC 45 - The Court examined whether the principle in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, which held that a waitlisted candidate cannot claim appointment after the expiry of the waitlist, applied. The Court distinguished the case, observing that the present matter involved a specific statutory provision (Section 13(4)) that allows fresh recommendations, unlike the general principles in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 13(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 permits fresh recommendation or change in place of posting of a waitlisted candidate who has already been recommended for appointment elsewhere, and whether such action is consistent with the law laid down in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench dated 05.05.2025, and dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent no. 6. The Court held that Section 13(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 permits a fresh recommendation for a waitlisted candidate to a different college.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 13(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act
- 1980
- Waitlisted candidate's right to appointment
- Change of place of posting
- Applicability of Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta
