Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the selection process for 35 posts of Deputy Collector initiated by the U.P. Public Service Commission, following a Combined State Service Examination held in 1985. The State of U.P. appealed against the High Court's judgment dated 16.07.2014, which quashed the State's order rejecting the representation of Chunni Lal for appointment as Deputy Collector. The High Court had directed the State to reconsider Chunni Lal's appointment while allowing the existing appointment of Ajay Shankar Pandey to remain undisturbed. However, during the proceedings, it was revealed that Chunni Lal had retired as Deputy Transport Commissioner on 31.08.2019, rendering the High Court's order incapable of implementation. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's order was unsustainable as it attempted to appoint two individuals to a single post, which is not permissible. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order, stating that there was no vacant post available for Chunni Lal's appointment. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Appointment to Public Office - Quashing of High Court Order - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The High Court directed the State to appoint the original writ petitioner to the post of Deputy Collector despite the appointment of another candidate and the absence of a vacant post. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's direction was unsustainable as two persons cannot be appointed to a single post, leading to the quashing of the High Court's order (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court's order directing the appointment of the original writ petitioner to the post of Deputy Collector was sustainable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court's order dated 16.07.2014, stating that the appointment of Chunni Lal was not possible due to the absence of a vacant post and the existing appointment of Ajay Shankar Pandey.
Law Points
- Appointment process
- Writ jurisdiction
- Public Service Commission recommendations
- Superannuation
- Quashing of High Court orders
