Allahabad High Court
YASHWANT CHAUHAN AND 11 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Supreme Court order applies only to the specific 39 appellants and does not extend to the petitioners; the respondent retains discretion and the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, who had participated in a 2016 recruitment process for Technical Grade‑II apprentices at U.P. Power Corporation, were initially selected but later omitted from the revised list of 12‑12‑2017. They sought to benefit from a Supreme Court order dated 12 Oct 2022, issued under Article 142, which directed appointment of 39 similarly situated appellants in Civil Appeal No. 7194/2022. The High Court noted that the petitioners were not parties to that Supreme Court proceeding and had not filed any SLP or intervention, and therefore the Supreme Court’s direction was not applicable to them. The Court held that the respondent corporation retains full discretion to fill any remaining vacancies and that the High Court cannot compel appointment based on the earlier Supreme Court order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the Supreme Court order under Article 142 granting appointment to 39 appellants is binding on petitioners who were not parties to that proceeding.
- Whether the High Court can direct the respondent corporation to appoint the petitioners despite the absence of a specific Supreme Court direction.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to parity with the 39 appellants in view of the existing vacancies.
- Whether the impugned order of the High Court is illegal or ultra vires.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 142
- Right to Information Act
Subjects
- recruitment
- appointment
- writ petition
- Article 142
- Supreme Court direction
- discretion
- vacancy
- special leave petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 19246 of 2023
Yashwant Chauhan And 11 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : G.K. Srivastava, J.P. Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Srivastava, C.S.C.
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Abhishek
Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent - Power Corporation.
2. The petitioners have participated in a recruitment process against 623
vacancies of Technical Grade-II (Apprentice) - Eletrical for U.P. Power
Corporation Ltd in pursuance of an advertisement dated 03.05.2016. The
petitioners have claimed that they were selected and were appointed also,
however, when a revised list was published on 12.12.2017 their names
and others were deleted. The petitioners and others have filed various writ
petitions against revised select list, however, it was dismissed vide a
judgment dated 08.03.2018 passed by a Single Bench of this Court.
3. Some of the aggrieved persons have filed numbers of Special Appeals
before Division Bench of this Court. It is not clear that petitioners have
filed Special Appeals or not. All Special Appeals filed by aggrieved
persons were dismissed vide a judgment dated 04.04.2018.
4. Admittedly, petitioners have not challenged any order before the
Supreme Court, however, some of aggrieved persons have filed SLP (C)
No. 18020 of 2022 (Civil Appeal No. 7194/2022). Said Appeals along
with intervention applications were finally allowed on 12.10.2022
exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of Constitution, whereby it was
directed that 39 appellants/intervenors should be given appointment on
above referred post within two months from date of order. Admittedly,
petitioners were not part of said judgment i.e. they were neither appellants
WRIA No. 19246 of 2023
2
therein nor they have filed any intervention application.
5. The petitioners being fence-sitters have filed a Writ Petition (C) No.
1047/2022 subsequently before Supreme Court to take benefit of above
referred judgments, however, it was dismissed as withdrawn on
07.12.2022. Subsequently, petitioners have filed a Misc. Application No.
132/2023 in above referred Civil Appeal No. 7194/2022 which was
disposed of by following order dated 07.02.2023 :-
"Benefit which was given to persons who were
similarly situated to the applicant was under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
However, these applicant(s) before us never
approached this Court for about 2 1/2 years after
the cause arose and now seek the same benefit.
We are not inclined to once again exercise
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India but if what the
applicant(s) claim, i.e., vacancies are available
and if the respondent feel it can accommodate
them, we are not coming in the way of that
accommodation being made by the respondent.
Miscellaneous application stands disposed of
accordingly.
ΙΑ NO. 12582/2023 FOR IMPLEADMENT
In view of the order passed in the miscellaneous
application, the application for impleadment
stands disposed of in the same terms and
observations as set out above."
6. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioners have filed a representation
before respondent - Power Corporation that their respective case for
appointment be considered in the light of above referred order passed by
Supreme Court, however, same was rejected vide impugned order dated
WRIA No. 19246 of 2023
3
01.09.2023 and relevant part thereof is mentioned below :-
"अभिलेखों की जाँच के समय ऐसे अभ्यर्थियों, जो हाईस्कू ल में विज्ञान एवं गणित विषय, में
ग्रेस मार्क्स के साथ उत्तीर्ण घोषित किये गये थे, को विज्ञापन के प्रस्तर-2 के अनुसार अर्ह न
मानते हुये चयन परिधि से बाहर कर दिया गया था। इन्ही व्यथित अभ्यर्थियों द्वारा विभिन्न
याचिकाएं (22) मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद एवं खण्ड पीठ लखनऊ में योजित की गयी
थी. जो प्रमुख रिट याचिका सं0-58918/2016 (सुनील कुमार एवं 46 अन्य बनाम स्टेट
ऑफ यू०पी० एवं अन्य) के साथ सम्बद्ध थी। मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद द्वारा वाद सं0-
58918/2016 में दिनाँक 07.10.2017 को पारित निर्णय द्वारा घोषित चयन सूची दिनाँक
09.12.2016 को निरस्त कर दिया गया था। तदोपरान्त मा० न्यायालय के आदेश के
अनुपालन में गणित या विज्ञान या दोनों में ग्रेस मार्क से हाईस्कू ल उत्तीर्ण अभ्यर्थियों को
सम्मिलित करते हुये लिखित परीक्षा एवं अभिलेखों के सत्यापन के उपरान्त श्रेष्ठत्ता के आधार
पर पुनरीक्षित चयन सूची दिनॉक 12.12.2017 को निर्गत की गई थी, जिसमें दिनाँक
09.12.2016 को घोषित चयन सूची में चयनित 99 अभ्यर्थी चयन परिधि से बाहर हो गये
थे।
चयन परिधि से बाहर हुये अभ्यर्थियों में से श्री दुर्गेश कुमार श्रीवास्तव द्वारा मा० उच्चतम्
न्यायालय नई दिल्ली में योजित स्पेशल लीव पिटीशन (सिविल) डायरी नं0- 31612/2019
(दुर्गेश कुमार श्रीवास्तव बनाम विद्युत सेवा आयोग एवं अन्य) में पारित निर्णय दिनॉक
12.10.2022 के अनुपालन में 39 नग वादीगणों को चयनित घोषित कर नियुक्ति प्रदान की
गई।
कालान्तर में आप एवं 12 अन्य व्यथित अभ्यर्थियों द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-7194/2022
(डायरी सं0-31612/2019), दुर्गेश कुमार श्रीवास्तव बनाम विद्युत सेवा आयोग, उ०प्र०
पा०का०लि० एवं अन्य में मिसलेनियस अप्लीकेशन सं0-132/2023 दाखिल कर, सिविल
अपील सं0-7194/2022 में दिनोंक 12.10.2022 को पारित निर्णय की भाँति ही आदेश
निर्गत करने की प्रार्थना की गई जिसपर मा० उच्चतम् न्यायालय द्वारा आदेश दिनांक
07.02.2023 पारित किया गया जिसके मुख्य अश निम्नवत् हैः-
"Benefit which was given to persons who were
similarly situated to the applicant was under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
However, these applicant (s) before us never
approached this court for about 212 years after
the cause arose and now seek the same benefit.
We are not inclined to once again exercise
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
WRIA No. 19246 of 2023
4
Constitution of India but if what the
applicant(s) claim, i.e., vacancies are available
and if the respondent feel it can accommodate
them, we are not coming in the way of that
accommodation being made by the respondent.
Miscellaneous application stands disposed of
accordingly..."
सूच्य हैं कि रिक्त पदों के सापेक्ष बिना नियत चयन प्रक्रिया का पालन किए समायोजित किये
जाने के संदर्भ में वर्तमान विनियमावली में कोई प्राविधान नहीं हैं।
उपरोक्त तथ्यों के दृष्टिगत आपके द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रत्यावेदन पर मा० उच्चत्तम् न्यायालय द्वारा
पारित निर्णय दिनाँक 07.02.2023 के आलोक में राज्यक विचारोपरान्त अवगत कराना है
कि आपका प्रत्यावेदन विचार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है।"
7. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that reasons assigned in
aforesaid order are not correct. The petitioners have participated in
recruitment process and were appointed also though later on, their
appointment were cancelled, however, when similarly situated persons
were granted benefit from Supreme Court and since the petitioners have
approached Supreme Court by way of filing a Misc. Application which
was disposed of with certain directions, therefore, their claim, on a
factually incorrect reason, cannot be rejected on a ground that they were
not part of recruitment process.
8. Learned counsel further submits that according to information given
under RTI Act, presently 98 posts are still vacant and he refers a judgment
of Supreme Court in Vikas Pratap Singh and others vs. State of
Chhattisgarh and others, (2013) 14 SCC 494.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent- Power Corporation submits
that Supreme Court in above referred order has not passed any direction.
Claim of petitioners for parity was rejected except that petitioners can
approach concerned respondents, however, it would be the complete
discretion of Corporation to appoint them or not and in given
circumstances, said discretion was not exercised.
WRIA No. 19246 of 2023
5
10. I have considered above submissions and perused the records.
11. From facts referred above, it is not much under dispute that petitioners
were fence-sitters. They have not approached Supreme Court either by
way of filing SLP or by way of any Intervention Application at relevant
stage, therefore, an order passed by Supreme Court on 12.10.2022, would
not be applicable to them and that was the purport of subsequent order
dated 07.02.2023 passed in Misc. Application No. 1332/2023 that said
benefit cannot be granted to petitioners, however, a window was left open
that if respondents feel to accommodate petitioners on vacant posts, they
can do so, therefore, there was no direction of Supreme Court even to
consider claim of the petitioners.
12. The respondents were left with a complete discretion to consider the
case of petitioners or not, therefore, even reasons assigned in impugned
order may not happily worded, still, once on basis of instructions, it is
specifically denied that petitioners cannot be accommodated even
vacancies are available, Court cannot sit on orders passed by Supreme
Court and to direct the respondents to follow such directions which was
passed under Article 142 of Constitution by the Supreme Court since it
was limited to only 39 appellants/intervenors in Civil Appeal No.
7194/2022, therefore, there is no illegality in impugned order.
13. So far as above referred judgment is concerned, it would not be
helpful to petitioners in given set of circumstances.
14. Accordingly, writ petition lacks merit, hence, it is dismissed.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
April 23, 2026
N. Sinha
Digitally signed by :-
NIRMAL SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…