- (1.) THE petitioner appeared in the selections in pursuance to the Advertisement No. A -5 E -1/1997 -98 issued by the Public Service Commission, U.P., for selection on the post of Asstt. Prosecuting Officers in the Asstt. Prosecuting Officers Examination, 1997 held under Section 15 of the U.P. Prosecuting Officer Service Rules, 1991. The advertisement was made for total 218 posts of APO to which reservation was applied in accordance with the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994.
(2.) SHRI Sheo Shyam and 5 others filed Writ Petition No. 28192 of 2002 alleging that the appointments were made in pursuance to the selection by the State Government on three dates. A large number of selected candidates failed to join. The number of these candidates was found to be 30 out of 218 recommended by the Public Service Commission. The High court found that the result was declared on 20.3.1999, and that even if the appointments were given on different dates, waiting list was valid only for a period of one year upto 20.3.2000, and in view of the decision of the Division Bench in Surendra Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. in Writ Petition No. 16899 of 2001 decided on 1.3.2002, the waiting list was no longer valid and operative to be used for making appointments. The petitioner challenged the judgment in the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 6505 of 2003, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 1035 of 2004. The Supreme Court found that the appointments were given on different dates from 10.5.1999 to 26.7.2001. It posed a question to itself as to whether the period of validity of the waiting list has to be one year from the date of the first recommendation made by the Commission, or from the date of the last of the recommendations. In view the peculiar nature of the fact situation, the Supreme Court allowed the Special Appeal with directions that the appellants shall be considered by the Commission and the State Government for appointment and that they will be appointed, if otherwise found suitable and eligible after verification of such credentials, documents and background as are necessary to be done for appointment. The last four paragraph of the judgment of the Supreme Court are quoted as below: In the aforesaid background, in a case of this nature and in view of the peculiar nature of the first situation noted above, it would be inequitable and unjust to compute the one year period form the date when the first recommendation was made by the Commission. Undisputedly, appointments were made till the end of 2001. Therefore, it would be proper to reckon the period from the last date when the recommendation was made. But another situation has developed subsequently. The state Government itself had requisitioned for 56 posts including the unfilled posts of the previous selection and examinations are stated to have been already held. The fate of present 11 appellants has suffered a set back on account of the action of both the Commission and the State Government. If the Commission's stand is that the validity period of the waiting list is one year, it should have sought for clarification from State Government as to why unfilled posts were included in the requisition, when its specific stand in the office memorandums referred to above was to the contrary. AT the same time, the State Government having taken a positive stand all through that the date of reckoning would be the last date on which the recommendation was made, it should not have included the unfilled posts in its requisition. The career of 11 candidates cannot be jeopardized in this battle of inconsistent and varying stands taken and moves adopted by the State Government and the Commission at different stages for different purposes. Had the Commission on receipt of the office memorandum dated 14.1.1999 pointed out to the State Government that its view was not in line with the Commission's view that would have sorted out the areas of differences. Interestingly, in a particular case referred top by the appellants, commission accepted that the period was to be from the last date of recommendation. Though there cannot be any estoppels in law, yet a statutory body like the commission cannot blow hot and cold at the same breath. There has to be consistency in its view. To rule out unfortunate situations like the present one being allowed to recur again, both the State Government and the Commission are required to be more vigilant and constructive in their approach. When dealing with the careers of large number of candidates, their stands have to be consistent and not varying to avoid giving room for unsavory suspicions and ensuring the systems to work more transparently to add to its reputation an d strength. In the peculiar circumstances noted above, we direct that the appellants shall be considered by the Commission and the State Government and they would be appointed if otherwise found suitable, and eligible after verification of such credentials, documents and background as are necessary to be done for appointment. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to costs. Sd/ -(Doraiswamy Raju) Sd/ (Arijit Pasayat)
(3.) BY letter dated 28th December, 2004 the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. informed the Secretary of the Public Service Commission that the Commission has made available a list of 7 persons in its letter dated 30.6.2004 and further list of 17 persons with its letter dated 3.11.2004, as wait list. Out of these only 8 persons were appellants in the Supreme Court. The names of three persons were not made available. The State Government in pursuance of the direction of the Supreme Court dated 16.2.2004 decided that the appointments is to be given to 11 persons, if they are found eligible after verification. The 11 persons, who were appellants before the Supreme Court were thus given appointments.;